Roger Ver and OKCoin at War Over Bitcoin.com Domain Name

Some weirdo is saying he has insider information about Roger Ver going to JAIL in August. Hes trying to convince me that Roger Ver scammed the elderly by tricking them into buying BCH instead of Bitcoin. He says Rogers being investigated as we speak and is going to face serious time in August

Some weirdo is saying he has insider information about Roger Ver going to JAIL in August. Hes trying to convince me that Roger Ver scammed the elderly by tricking them into buying BCH instead of Bitcoin. He says Rogers being investigated as we speak and is going to face serious time in August submitted by SimilarAdvantage to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Investigative journalists reveal how Roger Ver became a self-made millionaire /r/Bitcoin

Investigative journalists reveal how Roger Ver became a self-made millionaire /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Government should be investigating Roger Ver and BCH /r/Bitcoin

Government should be investigating Roger Ver and BCH /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

What could possibly happen if Coinbase and/or Roger Ver are investigated by SEC and proven to have done some insider trading and/or fraud? /r/Bitcoin

What could possibly happen if Coinbase and/or Roger Ver are investigated by SEC and proven to have done some insider trading and/or fraud? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Attempt at an unbiased summary of the IOTA attack by a non-bag holder

On February 12th the IOTA Foundation (IF) posted a status update:
February 12th 2020 - 08:55
After receiving several reports of fund theft that looked out of the ordinary in a short timeframe we decided to warn about this in Discord and on Twitter. As a precaution we ask you to keep your Trinity wallet closed for now.
25 minutes later they decide to shut down the "coordinator", blocking all "value" transactions.
February 12th 2020 - 09:20
After initial investigation we decided to turn off the Coordinator to make sure no further theft can occur until we find out the root cause of these thefts. Further investigation taking place from here on.
They then spend 5 days investigating the theft.
After about 24 hours, only about 10 people reported that they had been stolen from/were identified.
February 13th 2020 - 07:45
We've shifted the complete focus of all relevant resources of the IOTA Foundation to this investigation last night and we have been working in teams to investigate impact and cause together with the identified victims. The conclusions so far are:
- Most evidence is pointing towards seed theft, cause still unknown and under investigation
- Victims (around 10 that identified with the IOTA Foundation so far) all seem to have recently used Trinity
However, it seems by examining at the transactions that they knew were associated with the theft and were able to identify some new thefts.
February 14th 2020 - 05:45
...
The investigation has yielded absolutely no indication that there has been a core protocol breach of any kind. Rather, all evidence so far points to a problem with a dependency of the Trinity wallet.
The attack pattern analysis showed that the halt of the coordinator interrupted the attacker's attempts to liquidate funds on exchanges. The stolen funds have been purposely and repeatedly merged and split to obfuscate the investigation, and with the current token exchange rate as well as exchanges' KYC limits in mind. We received additional feedback from more exchanges (not all yet), confirming that none of the identified transactions has been received or liquidated. Our current assumption is that the perpetrator targeted high value accounts first, before moving on to smaller accounts and then being interrupted early by the halt of the coordinator. (Again: Hardware wallet users are not affected.)
To me, the details sound like the perpetrator was experienced and knew how to convert the tokens to a less-centralized cryptocurency without KYC/AML. It wasn't simply a crime of opportunity, but rather there was some planning.
There was a lot of speculation over whether or not the hacker was "sophisticated". Of course, he did manage to pwn IOTA's official wallet. However, the "Chairman of the Board" of IOTA wrote "Let's just say theres a lot of traces. The attacker does not seem to have been tоо sophisticated", on discord. Screenshot
On February 16th, IF released a new version of their wallet.

Trinity Desktop 1.4.1 is out.
...
- Update: Remove exchange support (#2565)
- Update: Adjust update alerts and disable auto update (#2566)
- Fix: Allow wallet entry when nodes are not in sync (#2563)
- Update: New Crowdin translations (#2553) - Fix: Endless loading cycle (#2568)
Two interesting changes are they removed exchange support and they disabled auto updates. IF had recently integrated "Moonpay"in their wallet, which allows users to buy IOTA with their credit cards for a 4.5% fee. Moonpay appears to be affiliated with Roger Ver and Bitcoin.com but I didn't look into this too much. Purely speculation, but it seems that Moonpay may be involved in the key theft.
Quite a few users in Discord were reporting that they had trouble with the new version.
About 12 hours later they released a new desktop version (1.4.2) with
- Fix: Incorrect alert on password change for some users (#2570)
Fast forward to today, IF released their remediation plan.
Basically, if you used their official wallet since December 17th, 2019 then your seed might be compromised. However, they say that the attack didn't really start until January 25th, so the Dec 17th date is out of an abundance of caution. (Note: I'm pretty sure December 17th is when Moonpay integration occurred.)
Here's the IF remediation plan from status.iota.org:
February 17th 2020 - 05:47
Here is a short overview of the attack remediation plan and the next steps going forward. Essentially the remediation plan involves three steps:
STEP 1: INSTALL UPDATED VERSION OF TRINITY
As announced yesterday, we have released an updated version of Trinity which allows you to check your balance and transactions. Please download this newest version of Trinity here and install it over your old version: https://github.com/iotaledgetrinity-wallet/releases/tag/desktop-1.4.1
When you download the new version, MAKE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD AND STORE IT IN A PASSWORD MANAGER. If you have used the same password also for other services or websites, we strongly recommend you change it there, too, as a precaution.
By upgrading to this new version of Trinity, you will remove the vulnerability from your wallet and render the hacker incapable of accessing your wallet if s/he has not already done so.
STEP 2: MIGRATE YOUR TOKENS TO SAFE SEEDS
In the upcoming days, we will release a seed migration tool that will allow users to transfer their tokens to a safe seed. We strongly recommend that ALL users who have opened any version of Trinity (Desktop or Mobile) since the 17th of December 2019 utilize the tool and migrate their tokens to a new, safe seed during the soon-to-be-announced migration period BEFORE the coordinator is re-started. More information on the tool and how to use it will be provided when the tool is published.
By migrating your tokens to new, safe seeds prior to the re-start of the coordinator, you will render the attacker incapable of making unauthorized transfers of your tokens if s/he has not already done so.
*Note: our current information indicates that the hack started on or around 25 January 2020 and that only Trinity Desktop users’ seeds were potentially compromised. However, out of an abundance of caution, we are nevertheless recommending that ALL users (not only desktop users) who are concerned about possible token loss should migrate their tokens to a new seed.
*Note: Ledger Nano users do not need to use the migration tool but a password change is still strongly recommended.
STEP 3: RECLAIM YOUR STOLEN TOKENS IF NECESSARY
Our current information indicates that only a limited number of bundles were successfully transferred by the attacker out of the true owners’ wallets. We have notified all exchanges of all compromised bundles we are aware of so as to prevent any further movement of any stolen tokens. We therefore anticipate that in the majority of cases, Steps 1 and 2 will be sufficient to protect most users’ tokens.
To address the minority of cases in which unauthorized token transfers were made out of users’ wallets, a third step is needed. We will perform a global snapshot of the network that will, pending community validation, enable us to bring stolen tokens back to the affected users. More information on the process as well as the consequences for all affected users will be provided soon.
Assuming the snapshot is successfully validated by the IOTA community (node operators), we will implement a KYC procedure involving a third party that will enable all users who had their tokens stolen to reclaim them. The same procedure will also be required for certain cases in which the migration tool is used fraudulently or incorrectly. More information on this process will follow shortly.
After the migration process, we will restart the coordinator and resume normal operations on the network. An update on the timeline will be released in the upcoming days.
We will publish detailed instructions on the steps users should take as soon as the remediation tools and processes are ready. For now, please make sure to download the new Trinity version to change your password and check your balance.
We would also like to ask any affected users from the United States to come forward and DM our team, as your cooperation could assist us with ongoing law enforcement investigations.
Thank you all for your patience. We will continue to update you on all important steps along the way and will do our best to make the transition as easy and smooth as possible.
So yea, if you got your tokens stolen, they will return them to you after you submit KYC/AML to the IOTA Foundation, assuming that "node operators" agree to roll back the theft.
Hopefully users didn't reuse the same seed for another cryptocurrency because they won't be able to roll those back.
It sounds like they're working with the FBI (or US law enforcement) on this which is a bit surprising. I'm skeptical that they have really identified the perpetrator -- a common attack is to steal developer Github credentials which could be what happened here. But again, that's purely speculation.
Please don't repost this on your for-profit crypto news site without attributing to me ;)

edit: formatting
submitted by Priest_of_Satoshi to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Why Isn’t BCH Way More Popular on the Dark Web?

According to crypto advocate Roger Ver, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only “recent” coin to be widely used on the dark web. “The only other coins being used on the darknet markets are the coins that have been around for a long time like Bitcoin, of course, then Monero,” Ver said. Coinelegraph’s investigation showed that […]
submitted by FuzzyOneAdmin to fuzzyone [link] [comments]

Surprise: Coinbase Finds No Insider Trading of Bitcoin Cash

Surprise: Coinbase Finds No Insider Trading of Bitcoin Cash submitted by Bitcoin_21 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Due to popular shill narratives claiming censorship, I did my own independent investigation, took 6+ hours. Here are the results:

TL;DR
I did an independent investigation to find if there is any censorship in this sub.
Results:
Interpretation: No censorship, mods are doing great job, mods are humans and can make a mistake sometimes due to too much work.
LONG VERSION:
Due to multiple claims of censorship in this sub with supplied links, made by shilling accounts, I became interested in finding out the truth for myself.
So I did an independent investigation of all of the popular claims of censorship, amassed together by shills in this topic: https://np.reddit.com/bitcoincashSV/comments/cdvilb/they_claim_that_cryptorebel_is_the_only_one_that/ [Archive]
I used mod logs provided here and Reddit Enhancement Suite to go back in time and verify all claims made, one after one. Took me 6+ Hours.
RESULTS FOLLOW:
btcnewsupdates: Completely justified ban. Spam while trying to push narrative. Breaking the rules of subreddit (multiple duplicates). Proof:
1:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/a14kds/the_resolution_of_the_bitcoin_cash_experiment_a/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/a0vc9j/the_resolution_of_the_bitcoin_cash_experiment/ [Archive]
2:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9z2302/bababc_devs_running_amok_implementing_changes/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9z28pz/how_to_spot_incompetent_devs_they_dont_know_thei [Archive]
SaltyBitcoinSV: Lying about being banned, he is not banned at all. Or maybe he was somehow banned by reddit.com itself (which won't be visible in modlogs).
kostialevin: Apparently an unjustified ban, but not sure if actually censorship - looks more like mod mistake.
CityBusDriverBitcoin: Abusive and aggressive multiple times towards other users, other than (obviously) saying "fuck you" to jessquit. For example, here:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/c6doyf/satoshi_nakamoto/es80zz6/?context=10000 [Archive]
Ban 120% justified.
010010001100011010: Copletely justified ban for spam, plenty of proof:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/a01klb/echo_echo/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9x392l/dr_plagius_now_threatens_btc_miners_with_an/e9pgc4w/?context=3 [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9x392l/dr_plagius_now_threatens_btc_miners_with_an/e9pgdi1/?context=3 [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9wq5wq/warning_to_craig_and_all_the_mining_pools/e9mg5g8/?context=3 [Archive]
SadisticMetal: Racist, "MARK MY WORDS YOU STINKY INDIAN.". BTW, being racist breaks site-wide Reddit TOS AFAIK.
Proof:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/a0fr5j/web_simulator_for_my_antireorg_algorithm/eahuv2g/ [Archive]
MCStravinsky: Spam, also Breaking reddit TOS[unable to verify TOS breaking, because links are deleted]
Proof of duplicates:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9y9s2q/the_odd_timing_of_coindance_annoucement_of_bchabc/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9y8ut4/the_strange_timing_of_coindance_announcement_of/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9y4z00/the_timing_oddness_of_the_coindance_message/ [Archive]
bigjuicycrypto: Unable to verify. Content missing, because of breaking reddit TOS [allegedly].
(User deleted his account): Unable to verify if claims are real or not.
Source: https://old.reddit.com/bitcoincashSV/comments/a3wpdm/banned_from_rbtc_for_my_updown_votes_is_thei [Archive]
boredaf7677709877: Banned for spam, but this is slight mod mistake IMO. Actually should be banned for "blatant mod abuse" (Roger Ver is a Mod). Saying "fuck roger" multiple times in a row, calling Roger Ver (one of the mods) Hitler with no proof whatsoever multiple times. I guess spam kind of fits as well after all...
Proof:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9wwoe7/roger_wake_up/e9nvdy0/?context=3 [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9wwoe7/roger_wake_up/e9nwbe8/?context=3 [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9wz29o/to_all_those_who_labeled_me_as_public_enemy_shame/e9obx2g/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9wq5wq/warning_to_craig_and_all_the_mining_pools/e9mf8df/ [Archive]
RogueSploit: Ban for flooding seems valid - I checked other subreddits and it seems to be a common thing. I was not aware of 1 post per 10 minutes posting limitation though (where is this rule written?). It would be more fair if the ban should be temporary even though the user is a BSV shill.
Proof:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9z62wb/the_devolution_of_roger_ve [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9z630z/abcs_actions_prove_that_they_wanted_a_split_from/ [Archive]
JoelDalais: Ban for being abusive, 120% justified.
Proof:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/c12em9/the_truth_will_set_you_free_or_fret_profit_by/eraj9g9/?context=3 [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/c12em9/the_truth_will_set_you_free_or_fret_profit_by/eragb4w/?context=3 [Archive]
peter_u1: Duplicates/Spam while trying to push narrative, ban fully justified. Also obvious forced duplicate ads of another coin, proof:
1:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/aco7pa/bsv_mined_a_104mb_block_world_record/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/aci6a6/bsv_mined_a_104mb_block_world_record_bch_is/ [Archive]
2:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/a5kd2x/gabriel_cardona_bitcoincash_is_the_single_most/ebnecpl/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/a49wtw/buy_bsv/ [Archive]
Ban 120% justified.
NOT_SURE: Duplicates/Spam while trying to push narrative. Multiple times. Ban 120% justified. Proof:
1:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/a3qzpy/wake_up_bch_community_you_have_been_misguided_i/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/a3tlzc/roger_and_jihan_you_failed_admit_it_now_and_let/ [Archive]
2:
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9wwoe7/roger_wake_up/ [Archive]
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9wuxj4/roger_it_is_not_too_late_to_admit_that_you_made_a/ [Archive]
CONCLUSION:
All of the (justly or unjustly) banned users were shills (mostly SV shills). I have reviewed them myself on different occasions and they all were on my RES-tag shill list.
When you are a dishonest shill, you have to tread carefully, because mods will use any excuse to ban you. And I cannot blame the mods, to be honest. Shills are annoying people who are being massively downvoted on this sub - meaning they are not wanted by the populace of this sub. Yet they somehow persist and lower the quality of our lives every day.
If I was a mod, I would ban them too, on the first occasion the sub rules would allow me to.
However, shills still deserve free speech as /btc is a free speech subreddit above all, so as long as they play by the rules of the sub, they should get it.
I do not like to play devil's advocate, but I would encourage mods to unban this one unjustly banned shill (probably by mistake). I don't think it will hurt.
EDIT:
Fixed 1 link.
submitted by ShadowOfHarbringer to btc [link] [comments]

Open Letter To The Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia regarding Crypto Strategies (trading as Coinspice)

Dear Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia,
I am a concerned global internet user worried about the darkmarket illegal drugs/child pornography/weapons etc... "Silk Road" type connections to a cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin Cash and an Australian company.
You might be aware that the head of the Bitcoin Cash operation (running at Bitcoin.com) is a Mr Roger Keith Ver, resident of St. Kitts & Nevis.
He was quite rightly recently denied a visa to enter your country. He has been denied visas to enter Canada and the USA. This Roger Ver is a dangerous cryptoanarchist with a convicted federal felon with prison time served in the USA for selling, storage and shipment of explosives, so I am glad your immigration authorities have done their homework.
His company however (Bitcoin.com) has become a platinum sponsor of the "Coinspice" event to be held in the city of Townsville, Queensland and his apparent reason to enter Australia was to speak at said conference.
How does this relate to the ATO?
Well Coinspice is just the brand name of a company called Crypto Strategies (ABN 17 421 429 725).
I note from the abr.business.gov.au that the company is registered as a Individual/Sole Trader with Entity Name "OTTO, ****** ****" (censored for reddit).
I adivse that you check what this "Sole Trader" is doing in the city of Townsville, Queensland because it certainly doesn't seem like a sole trader operation to me. You can see hundreds of hours of output on Youtube under the name "Coinspice", filmed by professional camera crews etc... and with professional editing and production. There are also livestreams and many other international productions and free giveaways of ATM machines etc... Also he is planning a big conference in the city.
Some useful links:
"Sole traders" website - https://coinspice.io
"Sole traders" Youtube channel - note multiple employees: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCmyWwEXAo9uLnc9mO-Obvg
"Sole traders" global conference - https://bitcoincashcity.com/
Example of "Sole trader" giving away 1 of 100 ATM cash machines: https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/cgbnv4/giving_away_100_bitcoin_cash_pointofsale_machines/
May I suggest you look for records in his tax filings related to payments for such companies services, and perhaps if the records don't exist my I suggest to you that that he is being funded by Mr Roger Ver, in Bitcoin Cash all off the records and without any accounting, and he uses such funds to pay for camera opertors, video editors, live streamers etc... etc...if it looks like and smells like tax avoidance and money laundering it is certainly a nice spicy case for you to investigate.
That's all - just as I take great pride in and have tremendous respect for your immigration authorities for their thorough investigation and denial of criminal Roger Ver entry to Australia, I am sure the tax investigation authorities are also up to the job.
Thanks for you time. G'day!
Jim (full name here - censored for reddit).
submitted by jim-btc to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Dash In 2018: Disappointments, Boondoggles, Scandals, Disasters, & Catastrophes

[The original post was censored in the the paidshill Dash pumping sub Dashpay, where actual discussion beyond "2018 kind of sucked for Dash" is not allowed.] ​
Disappointments
In 2018, Dash failed to be listed on Coinbase while ETC and many other coins were, due to Dash's notorious Instamine, centralized development, and murky Howey Test/SEC Action status.
In 2018, Dash failed be included in the OpenBazaar project, while Monero and several other alts were added.
In 2018, efforts to hype Dash's supposedly impressive 2mb block-based tx/sec rate were crushed and humiliated when DCG's creaky old client hit a crippling software limitation around the same time as BCH and BSV were chewing through 32 and 64 megabyte blocks.
In 2018, Dash's former anti-segwit hero Craig Wright learned new facts about law and concluded Dash is an illegal security, saying so loudly in tweets backed by citations.
In 2018, Wirex and other debit card providers supported Bitcoin and many alts, but not Dash, despite a year of Shrem 2.0 shill talk about integrations 'soon'.
In 2018, Dash Core used Uphold for the "Acquire Dash" part of their Kript mobile plan, but Uphold doesn't work in Venezuela , so that pillar of their strategy was broken.

Boondoggles
In 2018, the FanDuel fiasco wasted a fortune in cash and goodwill, leaving Dash's target market of online gambling to Calvin Ayre's BSV and Roger Ver's BCH blockchains.
In 2018, the DACH Embassy fiasco wasted a fortune in cash and goodwill, as nobody ever really cared about Macrocuck/Simon/Basilpop/Ezra/Fabio running around desperately trying to look busy enough to justify their ridiculous burn rate and poor results.
In 2018, the CoPay fiasco wasted a fortune in cash and goodwill as users and devs suffered an ambush from DCG, leaving the formerly hyped "backbone of Evolution" project instantly retired to abandonware status.
In 2018, the Alt36 train-wreck-in-progress slowly lurched towards its imminent conclusion of causing more toxic FUD and wasting a fortune in cash and goodwill with zero deliverables to show for it.

Scandals
In 2018, fake "Venezuela adoption" news resulted in massive public humiliation as Twitter, cc, and Russia Today (ironically, the home of Dash paidshill Max Keiser) debunked hype that only amounted to useless stickers on greasy cash registers.
In 2018, Evan and Amanda were missing in action, despite Evan's previous promises to develop hardware and support the ecosystem with his vast, intentionally insta-mined fortune.
In 2018, Dash paid to hold a Bitcoin networking event at a Miami strip club, offending so many people (it was a 2nd offence for Dash with strippers at TNABC) the scandal was reported worldwide by Bloomberg, Fortue, Business Insider, etc.
In 2018, knowledge of Dash's instamine became widespread throughout the entire crypto universe and the intentional nature of Evan's faked "bug" excuse became a subject of investigation.
In 2018, Dash cargo cultists reduced themselves to shilling the dwindling number of cherry-picked metrics by which Dash was not failing utterly, such as the absurd "FairCoinValue" and fallacious/irrelevant "ATH Masternode Count" hype.
In 2018, the KuvaCash fiasco turned toxic (wasting a fortune in cash and goodwill) resulting in a kDAO splinter group of venture capitalist MNOs and creating massive Howey Test implications.

Disasters
In 2018, a KuvaNation vs. DACH Force News civil war inflicted mass casualties, leaving a permanent split of the "DGBB" community into non-cooperative Team Tao and Team Joel factions fighting over a shrinking Treasury budget like starving rats.
In 2018, malicious MNOs trolled Dash at the protocol level and on DashCentral, causing chaos at the very end of voting cycles, thus showing the entire world Dash is not resistant to Sybil attack after all.
In 2018, Dash Clown Group Inc failed to live up to its own self-imposed "Agile Development" goals so many times they published one sketchy, final "DRAFT" roadmap, and then quietly abandoned entirely the idea of actually trying to meet deadlines (despite the dash.org page still advertising a Q4 2018 Alpha release).

Catastrophes
In 2018, a single mining pool controlled enough hashpower to prevent a timely upgrade, demonstrating that Dash's PoW is not sufficiently decentralized (due to Bitmain's monopoly on Dash ASICs).
In 2018, www.crypto51.app showed the world Dash is >90% NiceHash-able and thus may be 51% attacked easily and cheaply (<1 BTC per hour), causing Poloniex and other exchanges to require 50 confirmations (rather than using InsantSend).
In 2018, the failures of Dash's X11-based PoW security model and resulting threat of attacks caused Dash to abandon Nakamoto Consensus for a wonky, untested, homespun version of checkpoints (conceding defeat and offering an unconditional "pre-consensus" surrender before an attack even happened).
In 2018, Evolution was not here by NYE (not even an alpha version of a testnet).
In 2018, no amount of brave ThisIsFine talk about buying dips could change the fact that Dash Core Group Inc had to radically downsize due to their customary $935k/month funding being completely unsupportable.

Analysis
Never mind the price drop, even though Dash suffered worse than most of its Top 20 peers and fell in rank from #3 all the way down to #16.
Let's ignore the fact Dash is marketed to investors with the 'Masternode' feature advertised as supposedly stabilizing the price.
Let's also ignore the fact that in 2018 Dash's supposed Sybil-resistance was shown to be inadequate, as blockchain analysis revealed dozens of Masternodes trolling at the protocol level by voting no on all but the infamous DEMOTE RYAN TAYLOR proposal.
Evolution was, after years of delays, complete from-scratch reboots, and blown goals, given one final self-imposed deadline to meet.
Dash's Queen, Amanda of the Used Car Lot, declared she was going have to rethink her position regarding Duff's Instamined Masternode tokens if that deadline wasn't met.
That deadline was midnight Dec 31, 2018.
Now it's the first morning of 2019 and Evolution is nowhere to be seen.
Even worse, Dash Clown Inc is once again making negative progress towards their goals of shipping a test-net version of v13 worth of the term "Release Candidate."
Dash Clown Inc burned through ten (10) un-releasable (because broken) so-called Release Candidates.
Finally the clueless clowns (running around like headless chickens since Andy Freer was fired or rage-quit) gave up on the entire v13 RC branch and went back to tinkering with v12.
No updates to the crucial LLMQ repo have been made since November, when the price drop crushed DCG's budget and Andy suddenly left Evolution to die on the operating table.

Dash in 2018 through the eyes of Reddit's most popular crypto sub
January 2018
Congratulations: Dash out of top 10
https://np.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/7oq515/congratulations_dash_out_of_top_10/
One of the most prolific scam coins has been beaten out of the top 10 once and for all. For this we can all be grateful.
Evidence for all your downvoters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBxbiH_Mg44
https://medium.com/@omiros23/evans-and-dash-s-scam-story-add1f16528ae
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@thedashguy/the-reason-i-call-dash-a-scam-and-echo-chamber-proof-of-the-crazed-cult-like-thinking-of-dash-community-inside
Today is a good day.
Best comment: "replaced by Tron... oh the irony".

December 2018
KFC Venezuela denies accepting dash as a form of payment
https://np.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/a56a4e/kfc_venezuela_denies_accepting_dash_as_a_form_of/
** Hi guys, check this news
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.criptonoticias.com%2Fsucesos%2Fkfc-venezuela-desmiente-acepte-dash-como-forma-pago%2F
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccacampbell1/2018/12/07/discussions-in-place-for-dash-to-be-accepted-at-kfc-venezuela/#18baf92c5d38
https://twitter.com/dashmerchant/status/1072327769068052481
Top comment: "Yeah, more bullshit from Dash."

**December 24
Dash doesn't actually look like it is being utilised by Venezuelans. Have a look.
https://np.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/a96i3y/dash_doesnt_actually_look_like_it_is_being/
https://youtu.be/4tKvqj3U3O0
Most controversial comment: "I dont see how people dont get it. If you cant pay for food, you would invest what little you have into something as risky as crypto ? It is easy to judge from our POV but In reality, most would rather feed their familiy then look for ways to invest in some startup."

Conclusion
The Top Three Dash-related posts at cryptocurrency are a microcosm of Dash's start-to-finish miserable, horrible, terrible year of self-inflicted blunders, money pits, and epoch-ending cataclysms cumulating in the resolution of the Dash experiment and disproving Evan's "Dash is Digital Cash" hypothesis.
Note: The repost is shared here. The original has been censored from Dashpay. https://np.reddit.com/DashUncensored/comments/abvewf/dash_in_2018_disappointments_boondoggles_scandals/
[Dash is such a terrible scam that it needs its own uncensored sub to discuss happenings without incurring the wrath of the MNO and the Dash ponzi leadership/Evan/Amanda. I honestly believe crypto must weed out these ponzi like operations before we can move forward as a collective group]

submitted by tellmesay to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto

A couple of years ago in the early months of the 2017, I published a piece called Abundance Via Cryptocurrencies (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/69d12a/abundance\_via\_cryptocurrencies/) in which I kind of foresaw the crypto boom that had bitcoin go from $1k to $21k and the alt-coin economy swell up to have more than 60% of the bitcoin market capitalisation. At the time, I spoke of coming out from “the Pit” of conspiracy research and that I was a bit suss on bitcoin’s inception story. At the time I really didn’t see the scaling solution being put forward as being satisfactory and the progress on bitcoin seemed stifled by the politics of the social consensus on an open source protocol so I was looking into alt coins that I thought could perhaps improve upon the shortcomings of bitcoin. In the thread I made someone recommended to have a look at 4chan’s business and finance board. I did end up taking a look at it just as the bull market started to really surge. I found myself in a sea of anonymous posters who threw out all kinds of info and memes about the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of different shitcoins and why they’re all going to have lambos on the moon. I got right in to it, I loved the idea of filtering through all the shitposts and finding the nuggest of truth amongst it all and was deeply immersed in it all as the price of bitcoin surged 20x and alt coins surged 5-10 times against bitcoin themselves. This meant there were many people who chucked in a few grand and bought a stash of alt coins that they thought were gonna be the next big thing and some people ended up with “portfolios” 100-1000x times their initial investment.
To explain what it’s like to be on an anonymous business and finance board populated with incel neets, nazis, capitalist shit posters, autistic geniuses and whoever the hell else was using the board for shilling their coins during a 100x run up is impossible. It’s hilarious, dark, absurd, exciting and ultimately addictive as fuck. You have this app called blockfolio that you check every couple of minutes to see the little green percentages and the neat graphs of your value in dollars or bitcoin over day, week, month or year. Despite my years in the pit researching conspiracy, and my being suss on bitcoin in general I wasn’t anywhere near as distrustful as I should have been of an anonymous business and finance board and although I do genuinely think there are good people out there who are sharing information with one another in good faith and feel very grateful to the anons that have taken their time to write up quality content to educate people they don’t know, I wasn’t really prepared for the level of organisation and sophistication of the efforts groups would go to to deceive in this space.
Over the course of my time in there I watched my portfolio grow to ridiculous numbers relative to what I put in but I could never really bring myself to sell at the top of a pump as I always felt I had done my research on a coin and wanted to hold it for a long time so why would I sell? After some time though I would read about something new or I would find out of dodgy relationships of a coin I had and would want to exit my position and then I would rebalance my portfolio in to a coin I thought was either technologically superior or didn’t have the nefarious connections to people I had come across doing conspiracy research. Because I had been right in to the conspiracy and the decentralisation tropes I guess I always carried a bit of an antiauthoritarian/anarchist bias and despite participating in a ridiculously capitalistic market, was kind of against capitalism and looking to a blockchain protocol to support something along the lines of an open source anarchosyndicalist cryptocommune. I told myself I was investing in the tech and believed in the collective endeavour of the open source project and ultimately had faith some mysterious “they” would develop a protocol that would emancipate us from this debt slavery complex.
As I became more and more aware of how to spot artificial discussion on the chans, I began to seek out further some of the radical projects like vtorrent and skycoin and I guess became a bit carried away from being amidst such ridiculous overt shilling as on the boards so that if you look in my post history you can even see me promoting some of these coins to communities I thought might be sympathetic to their use case. I didn’t see it at the time because I always thought I was holding the coins with the best tech and wanted to ride them up as an investor who believed in them, but this kind of promotion is ultimately just part of a mentality that’s pervasive to the cryptocurrency “community” that insists because it is a decentralised project you have to in a way volunteer to inform people about the coin since the more decentralised ones without premines or DAO structures don’t have marketing budgets, or don’t have marketing teams. In the guise of cultivating a community, groups form together on social media platforms like slack, discord, telegram, twitter and ‘vote’ for different proposals, donate funds to various boards/foundations that are set up to give a “roadmap” for the coins path to greatness and organise marketing efforts on places like reddit, the chans, twitter. That’s for the more grass roots ones at least, there are many that were started as a fork of another coin, or a ICO, airdrop or all these different ways of disseminating a new cryptocurrency or raising funding for promising to develop one. Imagine the operations that can be run by a team that raised millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on their ICOs, especially if they are working in conjunction with a new niche of cryptocurrency media that’s all nepotistic and incestuous.
About a year and a half ago I published another piece called “Bitcoin is about to be dethroned” (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/7ewmuu/bitcoin\_is\_about\_to\_be\_dethroned/) where I felt I had come to realise the scaling debate had been corrupted by a company called Blockstream and they had been paying for social media operations in a fashion not to dissimilar to correct the record or such to control the narrative around the scaling debate and then through deceit and manipulation curated an apparent consensus around their narrative and hijacked the bitcoin name and ticker (BTC). I read the post again just before posting this and decided to refer to it to to add some kind of continuity to my story and hopefully save me writing so much out. Looking back on something you wrote is always a bit cringey especially because I can see that although I had made it a premise post, I was acting pretty confident that I was right and my tongue was acidic because of so much combating of shills on /biz/ but despite the fact I was wrong about the timing I stand by much of what I wrote then and want to expand upon it a bit more now.
The fork of the bitcoin protocol in to bitcoin core (BTC) and bitcoin cash (BCH) is the biggest value fork of the many that have occurred. There were a few others that forked off from the core chain that haven’t had any kind of attention put on them, positive or negative and I guess just keep chugging away as their own implementation. The bitcoin cash chain was supposed to be the camp that backed on chain scaling in the debate, but it turned out not everyone was entirely on board with that and some players/hashpower felt it was better to do a layer two type solution themselves although with bigger blocks servicing the second layer. Throughout what was now emerging as a debate within the BCH camp, Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre of Coin Geek said they were going to support massive on chain scaling, do a node implementation that would aim to restore bitcoin back to the 0.1.0 release which had all kinds of functionality included in it that had later been stripped by Core developers over the years and plan to bankrupt the people from Core who changed their mind on agreeing with on-chain scaling. This lead to a fork off the BCH chain in to bitcoin satoshis vision (BSV) and bitcoin cash ABC.

https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/cbb50c322a2a89f3c627e1680a3f40d4ad3cee5a3fb153e5d6d001bdf85de404

The premise for this post is that Craig S Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s an interesting premise because depending upon your frame of reference the premise may either be a fact or to some too outrageous to even believe as a premise. Yesterday it was announced via CoinGeek that Craig Steven Wright has been granted the copyright claim for both the bitcoin white-paper under the pen name Satoshi Nakamoto and the original 0.1.0 bitcoin software (both of which were marked (c) copyright of satoshi nakamoto. The reactions to the news can kind of be classified in to four different reactions. Those who heard it and rejected it, those who heard it but remained undecided, those who heard it and accepted it, and those who already believed he was. Apparently to many the price was unexpected and such a revelation wasn’t exactly priced in to the market with the price immediately pumping nearly 100% upon the news breaking. However, to some others it was a vindication of something they already believed. This is an interesting phenomena to observe. For many years now I have always occupied a somewhat positively contrarian position to the default narrative put forward to things so it’s not entirely surprising that I find myself in a camp that holds the minority opinion. As you can see in the bitcoin dethroned piece I called Craig fake satoshi, but over the last year and bit I investigated the story around Craig and came to my conclusion that I believed him to be at least a major part of a team of people who worked on the protocol I have to admit that through reading his articles, I have kind of been brought full circle to where my contrarian opinion has me becoming somewhat of an advocate for “the system’.
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registrations-for-bitcoin-white-paper-and-code/

When the news dropped, many took to social media to see what everyone was saying about it. On /biz/ a barrage of threads popped up discussing it with many celebrating and many rejecting the significance of such a copyright claim being granted. Immediately in nearly every thread there was a posting of an image of a person from twitter claiming that registering for copyright is an easy process that’s granted automatically unless challenged and so it doesn’t mean anything. This was enough for many to convince them of the insignificance of the revelation because of the comment from a person who claimed to have authority on twitter. Others chimed in to add that in fact there was a review of the copyright registration especially in high profile instances and these reviewers were satisfied with the evidence provided by Craig for the claim. At the moment Craig is being sued by Ira Kleiman for an amount of bitcoin that he believes he is entitled to because of Craig and Ira’s brother Dave working together on bitcoin. He is also engaged in suing a number of people from the cryptocurrency community for libel and defamation after they continued to use their social media/influencer positions to call him a fraud and a liar. He also has a number of patents lodged through his company nChain that are related to blockchain technologies. This has many people up in arms because in their mind Satoshi was part of a cypherpunk movement, wanted anonymity, endorsed what they believed to be an anti state and open source technologies and would use cryptography rather than court to prove his identity and would have no interest in patents.
https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/1fce34a7004759f8db16b2ae9678e9c6db434ff2e399f59b5a537f72eff2c1a1
https://imgur.com/a/aANAsL3)

If you listen to Craig with an open mind, what cannot be denied is the man is bloody smart. Whether he is honest or not is up to you to decide, but personally I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and then cut them off if i find them to be dishonest. What I haven’t really been able to do with my investigation of craig is cut him off. There have been many moments where I disagree with what he has had to say but I don’t think people having an opinion about something that I believe to be incorrect is the same as being a dishonest person. It’s very important to distinguish the two and if you are unable to do so there is a very real risk of you projecting expectations or ideals upon someone based off your ideas of who they are. Many times if someone is telling the truth but you don’t understand it, instead of acknowledging you don’t understand it, you label them as being stupid or dishonest. I think that has happened to an extreme extent with Craig. Let’s take for example the moment when someone in the slack channel asked Craig if he had had his IQ tested and what it was. Craig replied with 179. The vast majority of people on the internet have heard someone quote their IQ before in an argument or the IQ of others and to hear someone say such a score that is actually 6 standard deviations away from the mean score (so probably something like 1/100 000) immediately makes them reject it on the grounds of probability. Craig admits that he’s not the best with people and having worked with/taught many high functioning people (sometimes on the spectrum perhaps) on complex anatomical and physiological systems I have seen some that also share the same difficulties in relating to people and reconciling their genius and understandings with more average intelligences. Before rejecting his claim outright because we don’t understand much of what he says, it would be prudent to first check is there any evidence that may lend support to his claim of a one in a million intelligence quotient.

Craig has mentioned on a number of occasions that he holds a number of different degrees and certifications in relation to law, cryptography, statistics, mathematics, economics, theology, computer science, information technology/security. I guess that does sound like something someone with an extremely high intelligence could achieve. Now I haven’t validated all of them but from a simple check on Charles Sturt’s alumni portal using his birthday of 23rd of October 1970 we can see that he does in fact have 3 Masters and a PhD from Charles Sturt. Other pictures I have seen from his office at nChain have degrees in frames on the wall and a developer published a video titled Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 degrees where he went and validated at least 8 of them I believe. He is recently publishing his Doctorate of Theology through an on-chain social media page that you have to pay a little bit for access to sections of his thesis. It’s titled the gnarled roots of creation. He has also mentioned on a number of occasions his vast industry experience as both a security contractor and business owner. An archive from his LinkedIn can be seen below as well.

LinkedIn - https://archive.is/Q66Gl
https://youtu.be/nXdkczX5mR0 - Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 Degrees
https://www.yours.org/content/gnarled-roots-of-a-creation-mythos-45e69558fae0 - Gnarled Roots of Creation.
In fact here is an on chain collection of articles and videos relating to Craig called the library of craig - https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/94b361b205196560d1bd09e4e3b3ec7ad6bea478af204cabfe243efd8fc944dd


So there is a guy with 17 degrees, a self professed one in a hundred thousand IQ, who’s worked for Australian Federal Police, ASIO, NSA, NASA, ASX. He’s been in Royal Australian Air Force, operated a number of businesses in Australia, published half a dozen academic papers on networks, cryptography, security, taught machine learning and digital forensics at a number of universities and then another few hundred short articles on medium about his work in these various domains, has filed allegedly 700 patents on blockchain related technology that he is going to release on bitcoin sv, copyrighted the name so that he may prevent other competing protocols from using the brand name, that is telling you he is the guy that invented the technology that he has a whole host of other circumstantial evidence to support that, but people won’t believe that because they saw something that a talking head on twitter posted or that a Core Developer said, or a random document that appears online with a C S Wright signature on it that lists access to an address that is actually related to Roger Ver, that’s enough to write him off as a scam. Even then when he publishes a photo of the paper copy which appears to supersede the scanned one, people still don’t readjust their positions on the matter and resort back to “all he has to do is move the coins or sign a tx”.

https://imgur.com/urJbe10

Yes Craig was on the Cypherpunk mailing list back in the day, but that doesn’t mean that he was or is an anarchist. Or that he shares the same ideas that Code Is Law that many from the crypto community like to espouse. I myself have definitely been someone to parrot the phrase myself before reading lots of Craig’s articles and trying to understand where he is coming from. What I have come to learn from listening and reading the man, is that although I might be fed up with the systems we have in place, they still exist to perform important functions within society and because of that the tools we develop to serve us have to exist within that preexisting legal and social framework in order for them to have any chance at achieving global success in replacing fiat money with the first mathematically provably scarce commodity. He says he designed bitcoin to be an immutable data ledger where everyone is forced to be honest, and economically disincentivised to perform attacks within the network because of the logs kept in a Write Once Read Many (WORM) ledger with hierarchical cryptographic keys. In doing so you eliminate 99% of cyber crime, create transparent DAO type organisations that can be audited and fully compliant with legislature that’s developed by policy that comes from direct democratic voting software. Everyone who wants anonymous coins wants to have them so they can do dishonest things, illegal things, buy drugs, launder money, avoid taxes.

Now this triggers me a fair bit as someone who has bought drugs online, who probably hasn’t paid enough tax, who has done illegal things contemplating what it means to have that kind of an evidence ledger, and contemplate a reality where there are anonymous cryptocurrencies, where massive corporations continue to be able to avoid taxes, or where methamphetamine can be sold by the tonne, or where people can be bought and sold. This is the reality of creating technologies that can enable and empower criminals. I know some criminals and regard them as very good friends, but I know there are some criminals that I do not wish to know at all. I know there are people that do horrific things in the world and I know that something that makes it easier for them is having access to funds or the ability to move money around without being detected. I know arms, drugs and people are some of the biggest markets in the world, I know there is more than $50 trillion dollars siphoned in to off shore tax havens from the value generated as the product of human creativity in the economy and how much human charity is squandered through the NGO apparatus. I could go on and on about the crappy things happening in the world but I can also imagine them getting a lot worse with an anonymous cryptocurrency. Not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be an anonymous cryptocurrency. If someone makes one that works, they make one that works. Maybe they get to exist for a little while as a honeypot or if they can operate outside the law successfully longer, but bitcoin itself shouldn’t be one. There should be something a level playing field for honest people to interact with sound money. And if they operate within the law, then they will have more than adequate privacy, just they will leave immutable evidence for every transaction that can be used as evidence to build a case against you committing a crime.

His claim is that all the people that are protesting the loudest about him being Satoshi are all the people that are engaged in dishonest business or that have a vested interest in there not being one singular global ledger but rather a whole myriad of alternative currencies that can be pumped and dumped against one another, have all kinds of financial instruments applied to them like futures and then have these exchanges and custodial services not doing any Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti Money Laundering (AML) processes. Bitcoin SV was delisted by a number of exchanges recently after Craig launched legal action at some twitter crypto influencetalking heads who had continued to call him a fraud and then didn’t back down when the CEO of one of the biggest crypto exchanges told him to drop the case or he would delist his coin. The trolls of twitter all chimed in in support of those who have now been served with papers for defamation and libel and Craig even put out a bitcoin reward for a DOX on one of the people who had been particularly abusive to him on twitter. A big european exchange then conducted a twitter poll to determine whether or not BSV should be delisted as either (yes, it’s toxic or no) and when a few hundred votes were in favour of delisting it (which can be bought for a couple of bucks/100 votes). Shortly after Craig was delisted, news began to break of a US dollar stable coin called USDT potentially not being fully solvent for it’s apparent 1:1 backing of the token to dollars in the bank. Binance suffered an alleged exchange hack with 7000 BTC “stolen” and the site suspending withdrawals and deposits for a week. Binance holds 800m USDT for their US dollar markets and immediately once the deposits and withdrawals were suspended there was a massive pump for BTC in the USDT markets as people sought to exit their potentially not 1:1 backed token for bitcoin. The CEO of this exchange has the business registered out of Malta, no physical premises, the CEO stays hotel room to hotel room around the world, has all kind of trading competitions and the binance launchpad, uses an unregistered security to collect fees ($450m during the bear market) from the trading of the hundreds of coins that it lists on its exchange and has no regard for AML and KYC laws. Craig said he himself was able to create 100 gmail accounts in a day and create binance accounts with each of those gmail accounts and from the same wallet, deposit and withdraw 1 bitcoin into each of those in one day ($8000 x 100) without facing any restrictions or triggering any alerts or such.
This post could ramble on for ever and ever exposing the complexities of the rabbit hole but I wanted to offer some perspective on what’s been happening in the space. What is being built on the bitcoin SV blockchain is something that I can only partially comprehend but even from my limited understanding of what it is to become, I can see that the entirety of the crypto community is extremely threatened as it renders all the various alt coins and alt coin exchanges obsolete. It makes criminals play by the rules, it removes any power from the developer groups and turns the blockchain and the miners in to economies of scale where the blockchain acts as a serverless database, the miners provide computational resources/storage/RAM and you interact with a virtual machine through a monitor and keyboard plugged in to an ethernet port. It will be like something that takes us from a type 0 to a type 1 civilisation. There are many that like to keep us in the quagmire of corruption and criminality as it lines their pockets. Much much more can be read about the Cartel in crypto in the archive below. Is it possible this cartel has the resources to mount such a successful psychological operation on the cryptocurrency community that they manage to convince everyone that Craig is the bad guy, when he’s the only one calling for regulation, the application of the law, the storage of immutable records onchain to comply with banking secrecy laws, for Global Sound Money?

https://archive.fo/lk1lH#selection-3671.46-3671.55

Please note, where possible, images were uploaded onto the bitcoin sv blockchain through bitstagram paying about 10c a pop. If I wished I could then use an application etch and archive this post to the chain to be immutably stored. If this publishing forum was on chain too it would mean that when I do the archive the images that are in the bitstragram links (but stored in the bitcoin blockchain/database already) could be referenced in the archive by their txid so that they don’t have to be stored again and thus bringing the cost of the archive down to only the html and css.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

CSW: I am Satoshi Nakamoto. I created Bitcoin - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer

bitkan.pro aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
https://preview.redd.it/csnm617kv8d31.png?width=1058&format=png&auto=webp&s=26b7995effc85781365cbcd2ad56c5bd33c59af5
Question 1: Both the BCH and BSV communities think that they are the true, original bitcoin from Nakamoto. What do you think was the original idea from Nakamoto?
**CSW:**My original idea is defined in white paper for no limits. And I also described this in the P2P Foundation. It is a distributed system. Users use it to connect to each other, and the miners, to stop double Spending. I explain this further late in 2010, I basically said that the network expands to have a number of nodes that become large data center type operations, because it's not about running nodes. People who run nodes are foolish unless that making money, that's it. When I created Bitcoin, it is a overlay network of the peer-to-peer network, the top of peer-to-peer network. We did peer-to-peer. Peer-to-peer means not what you send to the network, and then another user gets it by the network. That is outside the definition of peer to peer. That is a typical centralized mesh. Why Bitcoin works is that user Alice sends to user Bob,Bob received the transaction. So Bob wrote that he received it. He sent it to the network. IP to IP was one of the fundamental parts of Bitcoin that was removed by core right after I left, basically, I fix Bitcoin and I had the lay out in the first place. There's no question that what happened, and whatever else and what version of things Nakamoto wanted, because I am Satoshi Nakamoto. I created Bitcoin. Very soon, people will notice that. If you don't like it, I don't care.

Question 2. As the main witnesses of BTC to BCH fork, what do you think was the main reason for the fork at that point of time? Now what do you think about the fork at the time? Have you ever changed your mind?
CSW: There was a BCH fork away from Bitcoin, BTC added a number of things to make cryptocurrency more anonymous, which makes it illegal, which means the government can shut it down. Don’t ever believe the government can’t stop bitcoin. Government, the US government and Chinese government could stop bitcoin in a heartbeat. They are going to follow international law to shut down. The Liberty Reserve closed down involved 42 countries working together. It involved basically a distributive system of 10,000 different operations. Not Raspberry pie nodes because it is only 15 real BTC nodes, operators to ran money system. We can't work to unable governments to see machines. If the criminal use of bitcoin is to become anonymous that government can seize machines, can arrest people, can torture by law. The American government can enforce orders in China. So BTC wanted to make something that was not bitcoin. It wanted to change bitcoin further. So BTC split away from bitcoin. That's the fork. Bitcoin didn't change. I make sure we kept going. Jihan and Bitmain. I would like to have a talk about what we are planning, and the mining, we are building. Jihan and Bitmain, took the information to go into confidence and make sure that there was a fork. So this fork happened because Jihan and Bitmain are basically a bunch of lying stuff, and that would be found out later. The second fork was only last year. That was with BCH. Just to keep it simple. Bitcoin vary again. There’s no system of bitcoin is out to try to make it illegal, to make it criminal, to make it anonymous. Roger Ver, who helps from things like Silk Road and Charlie's friend money laundering operation, which Charlie's friend went to jail for. Other people like them that invested a lot of the dark websites, which all under investigation at the moment, which will be founded to watch in the next several years. People like Roger and even Jihan, wanted to use bitcoin to take the illegal money and transfer, they want it to be a dark web system. So they added extra objects to change the bitcoin further. They try to allow it to be more anonymous in a different way. So the simple thing is, there is bitcoin as I created, and there is bitcoin designed to be illegal and then it forks.

Question 3. Finally, can we invite Dr. Craig and Mr. Jiang to talk about each other's technology l and vision? What is the most worthwhile point to learn?
**CSW:**Sorry, I don’t look at those broken versions of bitcoin. I have no interest in learning about how people don’t want to understand bitcoin, how about you want to see the value and how they want to create the system or see these cryptocurrencies in the 90s. If people want to do that, that’s all their choice, but I am not interested in watching them go down in flames. Thank you.

Jiang asked CSW: You have ever wondered why there isn't a 0 in Base58 encodings. (Satoshi, the creator of Base58 explicitly took out 0 and O to avoid confusion). Why didn't you even know the Base58 encoding if you are Satoshi?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9apx40/professor_technobabble_wondering_why_there_isnt_a/
CSW: He's supposedly trying to mislead the audience by making out the checksum to pass off the transaction. He is basically trying to lie to the people and the audience, making them seen that I don’t understand bitcoin. If you look at why it works, the address was not part of the bitcoin. Bitcoin is a wallet, exchange peer-to-peer with the template. Basically, why does this work is that you have is a transaction that has a checksum to send between wallets. That checksum is a relevant. It never goes into the bitcoin network. The checksum is added only to ensure the transaction to the network while a wallet is correct. The original version of bitcoin didn’t eventually work that way. So what he is trying to mislead you is to say is what I don’t understand checksum etc., which is the lie propagate by people like Bitmain, where insists what it is you do a checksum of the code and then you hand it up. And the third part of this is very simply put. Without the checksum, the transaction sends to the network properly. The checksum is purely a wallet function, so you can add any checksum function and Wormhole would allow this work. Wormhole was an attempt to make an illegal system. Wormhole is another of these things because Jihan and the others wanted to take money out of China. They work with people to do money laundering, so the value that they see of bitcoin is to help money laundering. So they want to try and lie to people and make it that I don’t understand this technology, because they want to keep their money laundering scam going. So if you actually look at my posts, you will see that I've already explained the checksum in details. If you look at the work bitcoin transaction, you will see there has no transaction checksum. No one wants you to look at that because they want you to stay stupid and ignorant, because spending money out of you requires that you are dumb.


Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate.
bitkan.pro aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
https://preview.redd.it/xxqshq8ov8d31.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca6e81c7fc3bff81a87df06e494ef320ca387416
submitted by BitKan to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? An analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). Part 3

Part 1
Part 2
So I have been subbed to /bitcoin since it had less than two thousand subs but haven't posted there in years. I think I took a break from researching bitcoin to take a foray into the world of conspiracy around 2014 and only got back in to it around the beginning of 2017 but with a bit of sense of skepticism and cynicism about everything. I think I returned to /bitcoin around that time but there had been a rift that had emerged in the community between those that said that bitcoin was censoring any discussion around big blocks but then also just censorship in general. This lead to the formation of /btc which became the main spot for big blockers to gather to talk about protocol development. Following the fork of Bitcoin Cash and SegWit (BTC) in August 2017 the camps were further divided when the fence sitters were denied their SegWit2x compromise. Many from the fence sitters then deferred back to the incumbent bitcoin as citing muh network effect, liquidity, and hashpower while some who felt betrayed by the failure of getting S2X through went to support BCH for some attempt at on chain scaling rather than through pegged side chains or Lightning Network.
Bitcoin cash initially went with a modest doubling of the blocksize to 2MB but implemented some other features like a new more rapidly adjusting difficulty algorithm to protect themselves against hashpower fluctuations from the majority chain. In about July of that year I had seen what I potentially thought was someone LARPing on /biz/ but screencapped, that segwit2x which was scheduled for november 2017 would be called off and then hashpower would switch to BCH causing congestion and chain death spiral on BTC and BCH would pump massively. I was partial to the idea as the game theory and incentives on a big block bitcoin should attract miners. About a month after SegWit2x was indeed called off while the BTC blockchain was hugely congested, BCH went through a violent pump reaching 0.5 BTC/BCH on a European exchange called Kraken while it also pumped ridiculously on American exchange coinbase. Shortly afterwards the market took a giant dump all over those people who bought the top and it has since retraced to roughly 30:1 or so now.
After that pump though BCH kind of gained some bagholders I guess who started to learn the talking points presented by personalities like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet. Craig S Wright by this time had been outed as Satoshi but had in 2016 publicly failed to convince the public with the cryptographic proof he provided. To which he later published the article I don't have the courage to prove I am the bitcoin creator. In essence this allowed many to disregard anything he offered to the crypto community though his company nChain was very much interested in providing the technical support to scale what he saw as the true implementation of bitcoin. Following debate around a set of planned protocol upgrades between a bitcoin node implementation by his company nChain and the developers of another client Bitcoin ABC (adjustable block cap), the two parties both dug their heels in and wouldn't compromise.
As it became clear that a fork was imminent there was a lot of vitriol tossed out towards Wright, another big billionaire backer Calvin Ayre and other personalities like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Craig's credibility was disregarded because of his failure to provide convincing cryptographic proof but still people who wanted to pursue the protocol upgrades that nChain were planning (as it best followed their interpretation of the bitcoin white paper) pursued his variant, while others who followed the socia consensus deferred to the positions of their personalities like Wu, Ver, and Sechet but even developers from Ethereum and other protocols chimed in to convince everyone that CSW is a fraud. This was referred to as the hash war and was the first time that the bitcoin protocol had been contentiously hard forked.

Hashpower is the CPU cycles you can commit to the Proof of Work function in bitcoin and the majority will generate the longest chain as they have the most proof of work. To win the contentious hard fork legitimately and make sure your chain will always be safe going forward you need to maintain your version of the blockchain with 51% of the hashpower on the network and force the other parties to continue to spend money on building a blockchain that is never going to be inserted in to the majority chain. As well as this you need to convince exchanges that you have the majority chain and have them feel safe to accept deposits and withdrawals so that they don't lose money in the chaos. This is how it would play out if both parties acted according to the rules of bitcoin and the Nakamoto Consensus.

There was a lot of shit talking between the two parties on social media with Craig Wright making a number of claims such as "you split, we bankrupt you" "I don't care if there is no ability to move coins to an exchange for a year" and other such warnings not to engage in foul play.. To explain this aftermath is quite tedious so It might be better to defer to this video for the in depth analysis but basically Roger Ver had to rent hashpower that was supposed to be mining BTC from his mining farm bitcoin.com, Jihan Wu did the same from his Bitmain Mining Farm which was a violation of his fiduciary duty as the CEO of a company preparing for an IPO. In this video of a livestream during the hashwar where Andreas Brekken admits to basically colluding with exchange owners like Coinbase, Kraken (exchange Roger Ver invested in), Bitfinex and others to release a patched ABC client to the exchanges and introducing "checkpoints" in to the BCH blockchain (which he even says is arguably "centralisation") in order to prevent deep reorgs of the BCH blockchain.
>"We knew we were going to win in 30 mins we had the victory because of these checkpoints that we released to a cartel of friendly businesses in a patch so then we just sat around drinking beers all day".
By releasing a patched client that has code in it to prevent deep reorgs by having the client refer to a checkpoint from a block mined by someone who supported BCHABC if another group of hash power was to try to insert a new chain history, this cartel of exchanges and mining farm operators conspired in private to change the nature of the bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto Consensus. Since the fork there have been a number of other BCH clients that have come up that require funding and have their own ideas about what things to implement on the BCH chain. What began to emerge was actually not necessarily an intention of scaling bitcoin but rather to implement Schnorr signatures to obfuscate transactions and to date the ABC client still has a default blocksize of 2MB but advertised as 16MB.
What this demonstrates for BCH is that through the collusion, the cartel can immediately get a favourable outcome from the developers to keep their businesses secure and from the personalities/developers to work on obfuscating records of transactions on the chain rather than scaling their protocol. After the SegWit fork, many from the BCH camp alleged that through the funding to Blockstream from AXA and groups that tied to the Bilderbergs, Blockstream would be beholden to the legacy banking and would be a spoke and hub centralised model, so naturally many of the "down with central banks anarcho capitalist types" had gathered in the BCH community. Through these sympathies it seems that people have been susceptible to being sold things like coin mixing and obfuscation with developers offering their opinions about how money needs to be anonymous to stop the evil government and central banks despite ideas like Mises’ Regression Theorem, which claims that in order for something to be money in the most proper sense, it must be traceable to an originally non-monetary barter commodity such as gold.
What this suggests is that there is an underlying intent from the people that have mechanisms to exert their will upon the protocol of bitcoin and that if obfuscation is their first priority rather than working on creating a scalable platform, this demonstrates that they don't wish to actually be global money but more so something that makes it easier to move money that you don't want seen. Roger Ver has often expressed sentiments of injustice about the treatment of Silk Road found Ross Ulbricht and donated a large amount of money to a fund for his defence. I initially got in to bitcoin seeking out the Silk Road and though I only wanted to test it to buy small quantities of mdma, lsd, and mescaline back in 2011 there was all sorts of criminal activity on there like scam manuals, counterfeits, ID, Credit Card info, and other darknet markets like armoury were selling pretty crazy weapons. It has been alleged by Craig Wright that in his capacity as a digital forensics expert he was involved with tracing bitcoin that was used to fund the trafficking of 12-16 year olds on the silk road. There have been attempts at debunking such claims by saying that silk road was moderated for such stuff by Ulbricht and others, but one only has to take a look in to the premise of pizza gate to understand that there it may be possible to hide in plain site with certain code words for utilising the market services and escrow of websites like the silk road. The recent pedo bust from South Korea demonstrates the importance of being able to track bitcoin transactions and if the first thing BCH wanted to do after separating itself from Satoshi's Vision and running on developer and cartel agendas was to implement obfuscation methods, this type of criminal activity will only proliferate.
Questions one must ask oneself then are things like why do they want this first? Are some of these developers, personalities and cartel businesses sitting on coins that they know are tarnished from the silk road and want to implement obfuscation practices so they can actually cash in some of the value they are unable to access? Merchants from the silk road 1 are still being caught even as recently as this year when they attempted to move coins that were known to have moved through the silk road. Chain analytics are only becoming more and more powerful and the records can never be changed under the original bitcoin protocol but with developer induced protocol changes like Schnorr signatures, and coinjoin it may be possible to start laundering these coins out in to circulation. I must admit with the cynicism I had towards government and law enforcement and my enjoying controlled substances occasionally I was sympathetic to Ross and donated to his legal fund back in the day and for many years claimed that I wouldn't pay my taxes when I wanted to cash out of bitcoin. I think many people in the space possess this same kind of mentality and subsequently can be preyed upon by people who wish to do much more in the obfuscation than dodge tax and party.
Another interesting observation is that despite the fact that btc spun off as a result of censorship around big block scaling on bitcoin, that subreddit itself has engaged in plenty of censorship for basically anyone who wants to discuss the ideas presented by Dr Craig Wright on that sub. When I posted my part 2 of this series in there a week ago I was immediately met with intense negativity and ad hominems so as to discourage others from reading the submission and my post history was immediately throttled to 1 comment every 10 mins. This is not quite as bad as cryptocurrency where my post made it through the new queue to gather some upvotes and a discussion started but I was immediately banned from that sub for 7 days for reason "Content standards - you're making accusations based on no evidence just a dump of links that do nothing to justify your claims except maybe trustnodes link (which has posted fabricated information about this subreddit mods) and a Reddit post. Keep the conspiracy theories in /conspiracy" My post was also kept at zero in bitcoin and conspiracy so technically btc was the least censored besides C_S_T.
In addition to the throttling I was also flagged by the u/BsvAlertBot which says whether or not a user has a questionable amount of activity in BSV subreddits and then a break down of your percentages. This was done in response to combat the "toxic trolls" of BSV but within bitcoincashSV there are many users that have migrated from what was originally supposed to be a uncensored subreddit to discuss bitcoin and many such as u/cryptacritic17 has have switched sides after having been made to essentially DOXX themselves in btc to prove that they aren't a toxic troll for raising criticisms of the way certain things are handled within that coin and development groups. Other prominent users such as u/jim-btc have been banned for impersonating another user which was in actual fact himself and he has uploaded evidence of him being in control of said account to the blockchain. Mod Log, Mod Damage Control, Mod Narrative BTFO. Interestingly in the comments on the picture uploaded to the blockchain you can see the spin to call him an SV shill when in actual fact he is just an OG bitcoiner that wanted bitcoin to scale as per the whitepaper.
What is essentially going on in the Bitcoin space is that there is a battle of the protocols and a battle for social consensus. The incumbent BTC has majority of the attention and awareness as it is being backed by legacy banking and finance with In-Q-Tel and AXA funding blockstream as well as Epstein associates and MIT, but in the power vaccum that presented itself as to who would steward the big block variant, a posse of cryptoanarchists have gained control of the social media forums and attempted to exert their will upon what should essentially be a Set In Stone Protocol to create something that facilitates their economic activity (such as selling explosives online)) while attempting to leverage their position as moderators who control the social forum to spin their actions as something different (note memorydealers is Roger Ver). For all his tears for the children killed in wars, it seems that what cryptoanarchists such as u/memorydealers want is to delist/shut down governments and they will go to any efforts such as censorship to make sure that it is their implementation of bitcoin that will do that. Are we really going to have a better world with people easier able to hide transactions/launder money?
Because of this power vacuum there also exists a number of different development groups but what is emerging now is that they are struggling for money to fund their development. The main engineering is done by self professed benevolent dictator Amaury Sechet (deadalnix) who in leaked telegram screen caps appears to be losing it as funding for development has dried up and money raised in an anarchist fashion wasn't compliant with laws around fundraising sources and FVNI (development society that manages BCH development and these donations) is run by known scammer David R Allen. David was founder of 2014 Israeli ICO Getgems (GEMZ) that scammed investors out of more than 2500 Bitcoins. The SV supported sky-lark who released this information has since deleted all their accounts but other users have claimed that sky-lark was sent personal details about themselves and pictures of their loved ones and subsequently deleted all their social media accounts afterwards.
There are other shifty behaviours like hiring Japanese influencers to shill their coin, recruiting a Hayden Otto that up until 2018 was shilling Pascal Coin to become a major ambassador for BCH in the Australian city of Townsville. Townsville was claimed to be BCH city hosting a BCH conference there and claiming loads of adoption, but at the conference itself their idea of demonstrating adoption was handing a Point of Sale device to the bar to accept bitcoin payments but Otto actually just putting his credit card behind the bar to settle and he would keep the BCH that everyone paid. In the lead up to the conference the second top moderator of btc was added to the moderators of townsville to shill their coin but has ended up with the townsville subreddit wanting to ban all bitcoin talk from the subreddit.
Many of the BCH developers are now infighting as funding dries up and they find themselves floundering with no vision of how to achieve scale or get actual real world adoption. Amaury has recently accused Peter Rizun of propagandising, told multiple users in the telegram to fuck off and from all accounts appears to be a malignant narcissist incapable of maintaining any kind of healthy relationship with people he is supposed to be working with. Peter Rizun has begun lurking in bitcoincashSV and recognising some of the ideas coming from BSV as having merit while Roger has started to distance himself from the creation of BCH. Interestingly at a point early in the BCH history Roger believed Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi, but once CSW wouldn't go along with their planned road map and revealed the fact he had patents on blockchain technology and wanted to go down a path that worked with Law, Roger retracted that statement and said he was tricked by Craig. He joined in on the faketoshi campaign and has been attempted to be sued by Dr Wright for libel in the UK to which Roger refused to engage citing grounds of jurisdiction. Ironically this avoidance of Roger to meet Dr Wright in court to defend his claims can be seen as the very argument against justice being served by private courts under an anarchocapitalist paradigm with essentially someone with resources simply being able to either flee a private court's jurisdiction or engage a team of lawyers that can bury any chances of an everyday person being able to get justice.
There is much more going on with the BCH drama that can be explained in a single post but it is clear that some of the major personalities in the project are very much interested in having their ideals projected on to the technical implementation of the bitcoin protocol and have no qualms spouting rhetoric around the anti-censorship qualities of bitcoin/BCH while at the same time employing significant censorship on their social media forums to control what people are exposed to and getting rid of anyone who challenges their vision. I posit that were this coin to become a success, these "benevolent dictators" as they put it would love their new found positions of wealth/dominance yet if their behaviour to get there is anything to go by, would demonstrate the same power tripping practices of censorship, weasel acts, misleading people about adoption statistics and curating of the narrative. When the hashrate from Rogers bitcoin.com minging operation on BCH dropped dramatically and a lot of empty blocks were being mined, his employer and 2IC moderator u/BitcoinXio (who stepped in to replace roger as CEO) was in the sub informing everyone it was simply variance that was the reason when only a few days later it was revealed that they had reduced their hash power significantly. This is not appropriate behaviour for one of the primary enterprises engaged in stewarding BCH and encouraging adoption nor is the inability to be accountable for such dishonest practices as well. It seems bitcoin.com treats btc as their own personal spam page where Roger can ask for donations despite it being against the sub rules and spin/ban any challenge to the narrative they seek to create.
Let's see how the censorship goes as I post this around a few of the same places as the last piece. Stay tuned for the next write up where I take a deep dive in to the coin that everyone doesn't want you to know about.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

I've written a public comment to Coinbase expressing my dissatisfaction with their execution of the BCH launch, and I suggest you do the same.

UPDATE
For everyone accusing me of doing this because I lost money, my crypto portfolio is down around 3% since yesterday. That's pure noise, and is not the reason I wrote this. The reason I am disappointed in Coinbase is because they took advantage of their power in the cryptocurrency community to enrich themselves. This abuse of power is something I think most involved in cryptocurrency frown upon quite heavily. I will say that I'm pleased to see Brian Armstrong/Coinbase has begun an internal investigation regarding this matter. This just goes to show that your voice does matter. I'm sure if myself and others who've expressed their discontent over this launch hadn't spoken up, there would be no internal investigation.
As I wrote in my comment, I have no problem with Coinbase allowing early access to BCH. However, their enabling of insider trading and lack of transparency to the public during this time period was unacceptable. As a community, we should not stand for things like this and need to make our voices heard. Posting a comment on Reddit is great, but it's important to speak directly to those we're dissatisfied with. I've pasted the full text of my comment below. I wrote it on their post about the BCH launch, but if you want to write them as well, you can do it anywhere, even in a support ticket.
Your execution of this entire process was extremely unprofessional. I understand Coinbase supports larger blocks, but that doesn’t make it ok to allow blatant market manipulation and for a lack of transparency. Your initial announcement about supporting BCH indicated you’d be enabling support around January 1st. While it’s great you allowed your users to access their BCH early, what’s not so great is enabling blatant market manipulation. Please don’t pretend you don’t understand what I mean. It’s no coincidence the price of BCH has been skyrocketing in the days leading up to this announcement. Also, you couldn’t even give the general public 24 hours notice before doing this?
I remember back in the day when Coinbase was a bastion of excellence in the BTC economy; I remember being glued to my screen when your infamous rocket ship countdown timer was the focus of the community. I recommended Coinbase to all my friends, peers, and the readers of my blog, but I will no longer be doing so after this disaster of a launch. There’s a reason you had to halt trading on your site; it’s because your launch of this fork was executed so poorly.
I disagree with Roger Ver and Jihan Wu because of their lack of professionalism and blatant manipulation of the Bitcoin protocol which is evident to anyone who’s heard the things Roger has said in his recent interviews or who understands what ASIC Boost is. However, I still do hold a small amount of BCH because companies like Coinbase hold power in the world of cryptocurrency and I’m cynical about human nature. I would love to see Core implement a blocksize increase AND begin the rollout of the Lightning Network, but the Bitcoin community does not need people like Roger and apparently companies like Coinbase in charge.
Unless Coinbase releases a public apology and makes an attempt to right this situation, I’m afraid I’ll have to begin recommending alternatives and start moving my business elsewhere. You should have given the general public more than a few hours advance notice of this event so they could trade accordingly instead of giving it to whatever friends or peers the company allowed to profit off of insider information.
Sincerely,
A disgruntled customer.
submitted by MarketAhab to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Open Letter to Ms. Anne Clarke, Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio

Dear Ms Clarke,
It has come to my attention that your local council of Dublin, Ohio is about to engage in very reckless behaviour involving cryptocurrencies which could have consequences for your citizens and the reputation of your council.
It is my understanding that a Mr Joshua Green of "Bitcoin Verde" has won a contract to provide the following services for the residents of Dublin:-
This is designed as a Simple Ledger Protocol token ran on top of the Bitcoin CASH (BCH) blockchain, which is very different to the more commonly known Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain, with a much smaller user base and a much smaller level of security and accountability.
Technical Considerations
If you are not aware there are currently three competing Bitcoin systems, where at any moments notice the potential exists for the "mining power" allocated to one system, to be able to destroy and make unusable any of the other systems providing it has more than 51% of hash power.
At current time of writing we see the following allocation of all "Bitcoin" miners mining on each chain:-
Suffice to say if just 1.8% of miners decided to act dishonestly and move from BTC to attack the BCH chain, they would be the 51% majority and be able to freeze the chain and deny all transactions, and there would be the potential for lost transactions. With your proposed system running on top of the BCH chain of course it would feel all ramifications of such an event, and there would be nothing that anybody including Mr Green would be able to do to restore service.
Coupled with this the relevantly recent start-up Bitcoin SV is declaring "all out war" on both the BCH and BTC Bitcoins, and its creator who has been recognised by your kin, The City Council of Bogota, Colombia as "Satoshi Nakamoto - The Inventor of Bitcoin" has promised to destroy them before fall 2020 and has sufficient financial resources and backing to make good on this threat.
Moral Considerations
Roger Ver is the CEO of Bitcoin.com and is the largest proponent of Bitcoin Cash adoption. If it were not for Roger Ver Bitcoin Cash would not exist.
Roger Ver describes himself as "anti-government" and regularly posts on his Twitter regarding aboloshing of paying taxes, and played an early part in supporting the illegal drugs marketplace "The Silk Road". This is who the esteemed Councillors of Dublin are associating themselves with.
Roger Ver is also a convicted felon having spent time in Federal Prison. Hobbyists involved with the Bitcoin Cash chain are generally anarchists and anti-government, and it is there aim to make an eventual anonymous system to facilitate the purchasing of hard drugs, weapons, child pornography etc... without any fear of recourse.
Transparency
Being a cryptocurrency investor, technologist and hobbyist (and a strong proponent of Bitcoin SV which is the pro-government transparent Bitcoin) I understand the need for governments to use blockchain and that there is no better place to start than the local council level, however as an IT Analyst with over 20 years experience I would not recommend any council use any of the Bitcoin blockchains right now including Bitcoin SV, until this impending "cryptocurrency war" has been fought and only one chain remains.
What people decide to risk their own personal assets on is their choice, however as council representing people and their rewards, voting rights, digital identities and assets your obvious lack of understanding of the cryptocurrency space could leave them with losses, tangible or otherwise and of course would lead to losses of taxpayer funded government funds having wasted them on a unsustainable and unworkable project.
Whilst to the casual observer (and I am sure many of your citizens) the idea of "total anonymity" sounds good, and a nice way of hiding ones assets and perhaps not paying all they have to in taxes - I admit I used to have this opinion, it is through education and understanding how things really work that the only way for a truly fair, just and transparent society is to not allow such anonymity. For every Joe Smith hiding $1,000 from the government there would be a Mr Fat Cat hiding $1,000,000,000 using the same methods. Transparency from government, transparency from business and transparency from citizens is the only true advancement in society that a blockchain technology can deliver to us all.
Conclusion
I feel the council has not done due dilegence, and this is a very reckless and potential costly move which could result in the loss of these facilities to your citizens.
I have published this letter publicly to ensure that should action not be taken to investigate my claims that citizens will have a legal option for redress due to your council having been informed of the potential disasters that can happen here, with adequate forewarning.
Feedback
Feel free to reach out to me on reddit ( jim-btc ) and I will also provide you with a private email when I contact you directly so you can email me any questions or concerns. If I can be of further assistance I'd be happy to partake in a voice call with yourself or anybody from your council.
I have posted this to the subreddit for your town /dublinohio/ and if any citizen there would like to engage with me in public for questions etc... I would be happy to assist.
Thanks for taking the time to read my concerns.
Regards
A concerned, honest world citizen
P.S. I made a video about all of this, free for all here
submitted by jim-btc to dublinohio [link] [comments]

Dash In 2018: Disappointments, Boondoggles, Scandals, Disasters, & Catastrophes

[This post was censored in the the paidshill Dash pumping sub, where actual discussion beyond "2018 kind of sucked for Dash" is not allowed, and then re-posted here.]


Disappointments
In 2018, Dash failed to be listed on Coinbase while ETC and many other coins were, due to Dash's notorious Instamine, centralized development, and murky Howey Test/SEC Action status.
In 2018, Dash failed be included in the OpenBazaar project, while Monero and several other alts were added.
In 2018, efforts to hype Dash's supposedly impressive 2mb block-based tx/sec rate were crushed and humiliated when DCG's creaky old client hit a crippling software limitation around the same time as BCH and BSV were chewing through 32 and 64 megabyte blocks.
In 2018, Dash's former anti-segwit hero Craig Wright learned new facts about law and concluded Dash is an illegal security, saying so loudly in tweets backed by citations.
In 2018, Wirex and other debit card providers supported Bitcoin and many alts, but not Dash, despite a year of Shrem 2.0 shill talk about integrations 'soon'.
In 2018, Dash Core used Uphold for the "Acquire Dash" part of their Kript mobile plan, but Uphold doesn't work in Venezuela , so that pillar of their strategy was broken.

Boondoggles
In 2018, the FanDuel fiasco wasted a fortune in cash and goodwill, leaving Dash's target market of online gambling to Calvin Ayre's BSV and Roger Ver's BCH blockchains.
In 2018, the DACH Embassy fiasco wasted a fortune in cash and goodwill, as nobody ever really cared about Macrocuck/Simon/Basilpop/Ezra/Fabio running around desperately trying to look busy enough to justify their ridiculous burn rate and poor results.
In 2018, the CoPay fiasco wasted a fortune in cash and goodwill as users and devs suffered an ambush from DCG, leaving the formerly hyped "backbone of Evolution" project instantly retired to abandonware status.
In 2018, the Alt36 train-wreck-in-progress slowly lurched towards its imminent conclusion of causing more toxic FUD and wasting a fortune in cash and goodwill with zero deliverables to show for it.

Scandals
In 2018, fake "Venezuela adoption" news resulted in massive public humiliation as Twitter, cc, and Russia Today (ironically, the home of Dash paidshill Max Keiser) debunked hype that only amounted to useless stickers on greasy cash registers.
In 2018, Evan and Amanda were missing in action, despite Evan's previous promises to develop hardware and support the ecosystem with his vast, intentionally insta-mined fortune.
In 2018, Dash paid to hold a Bitcoin networking event at a Miami strip club, offending so many people (it was a 2nd offence for Dash with strippers at TNABC) the scandal was reported worldwide by Bloomberg, Fortue, Business Insider, etc.
In 2018, knowledge of Dash's instamine became widespread throughout the entire crypto universe and the intentional nature of Evan's faked "bug" excuse became a subject of investigation.
In 2018, Dash cargo cultists reduced themselves to shilling the dwindling number of cherry-picked metrics by which Dash was not failing utterly, such as the absurd "FairCoinValue" and fallacious/irrelevant "ATH Masternode Count" hype.
In 2018, the KuvaCash fiasco turned toxic (wasting a fortune in cash and goodwill) resulting in a kDAO splinter group of venture capitalist MNOs and creating massive Howey Test implications.

Disasters
In 2018, a KuvaNation vs. DACH Force News civil war inflicted mass casualties, leaving a permanent split of the "DGBB" community into non-cooperative Team Tao and Team Joel factions fighting over a shrinking Treasury budget like starving rats.
In 2018, malicious MNOs trolled Dash at the protocol level and on DashCentral, causing chaos at the very end of voting cycles, thus showing the entire world Dash is not resistant to Sybil attack after all.
In 2018, Dash Clown Group Inc failed to live up to its own self-imposed "Agile Development" goals so many times they published one sketchy, final "DRAFT" roadmap, and then quietly abandoned entirely the idea of actually trying to meet deadlines (despite the dash.org page still advertising a Q4 2018 Alpha release).

Catastrophes
In 2018, a single mining pool controlled enough hashpower to prevent a timely upgrade, demonstrating that Dash's PoW is not sufficiently decentralized (due to Bitmain's monopoly on Dash ASICs).
In 2018, www.crypto51.app showed the world Dash is >90% NiceHash-able and thus may be 51% attacked easily and cheaply (<1 BTC per hour), causing Poloniex and other exchanges to require 50 confirmations (rather than using InsantSend).
In 2018, the failures of Dash's X11-based PoW security model and resulting threat of attacks caused Dash to abandon Nakamoto Consensus for a wonky, untested, homespun version of checkpoints (conceding defeat and offering an unconditional "pre-consensus" surrender before an attack even happened).
In 2018, Evolution was not here by NYE (not even an alpha version of a testnet).
In 2018, no amount of brave ThisIsFine talk about buying dips could change the fact that Dash Core Group Inc had to radically downsize due to their customary $935k/month funding being completely unsupportable.

Analysis
Never mind the price drop, even though Dash suffered worse than most of its Top 20 peers and fell in rank from #3 all the way down to #16.
Let's ignore the fact Dash is marketed to investors with the 'Masternode' feature advertised as supposedly stabilizing the price.
Let's also ignore the fact that in 2018 Dash's supposed Sybil-resistance was shown to be inadequate, as blockchain analysis revealed dozens of Masternodes trolling at the protocol level by voting no on all but the infamous DEMOTE RYAN TAYLOR proposal.
Evolution was, after years of delays, complete from-scratch reboots, and blown goals, given one final self-imposed deadline to meet.
Dash's Queen, Amanda of the Used Car Lot, declared she was going have to rethink her position regarding Duff's Instamined Masternode tokens if that deadline wasn't met.
That deadline was midnight Dec 31, 2018.
Now it's the first morning of 2019 and Evolution is nowhere to be seen.
Even worse, Dash Clown Inc is once again making negative progress towards their goals of shipping a test-net version of v13 worth of the term "Release Candidate."
Dash Clown Inc burned through ten (10) un-releasable (because broken) so-called Release Candidates.
Finally the clueless clowns (running around like headless chickens since Andy Freer was fired or rage-quit) gave up on the entire v13 RC branch and went back to tinkering with v12.
No updates to the crucial LLMQ repo have been made since November, when the price drop crushed DCG's budget and Andy suddenly left Evolution to die on the operating table.

Dash in 2018 through the eyes of Reddit's most popular crypto sub

January 2018
Congratulations: Dash out of top 10
https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/7oq515/congratulations_dash_out_of_top_10/
One of the most prolific scam coins has been beaten out of the top 10 once and for all. For this we can all be grateful.
Evidence for all your downvoters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBxbiH_Mg44
https://medium.com/@omiros23/evans-and-dash-s-scam-story-add1f16528ae
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@thedashguy/the-reason-i-call-dash-a-scam-and-echo-chamber-proof-of-the-crazed-cult-like-thinking-of-dash-community-inside
Today is a good day.
Best comment: "replaced by Tron... oh the irony".

December 2018
KFC Venezuela denies accepting dash as a form of payment
https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/a56a4e/kfc_venezuela_denies_accepting_dash_as_a_form_of/
Hi guys, check this news
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.criptonoticias.com%2Fsucesos%2Fkfc-venezuela-desmiente-acepte-dash-como-forma-pago%2F
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccacampbell1/2018/12/07/discussions-in-place-for-dash-to-be-accepted-at-kfc-venezuela/#18baf92c5d38
https://twitter.com/dashmerchant/status/1072327769068052481
Top comment: "Yeah, more bullshit from Dash."

December 24
Dash doesn't actually look like it is being utilised by Venezuelans. Have a look.
https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/a96i3y/dash_doesnt_actually_look_like_it_is_being/
https://youtu.be/4tKvqj3U3O0
Most controversial comment: "I dont see how people dont get it. If you cant pay for food, you would invest what little you have into something as risky as crypto ? It is easy to judge from our POV but In reality, most would rather feed their familiy then look for ways to invest in some startup."

Conclusion
The Top Three Dash-related posts at cryptocurrency are a microcosm of Dash's start-to-finish miserable, horrible, terrible year of self-inflicted blunders, money pits, and epoch-ending cataclysms cumulating in the resolution of the Dash experiment and disproving Evan's "Dash is Digital Cash" hypothesis.
submitted by DashNews to DashUncensored [link] [comments]

Who is the richest Bitcoin owner?

Technically, Bitcoin was worth less than 10 cents per bitcoin upon its inception in 2009. The cryptocurrency has risen steadily since then and is now worth around $6000 per Bitcoin. This is the most remarkable appreciation of the value and has created many millionaires over the last eight years.
Here are the top ten people/institutions that held a large amount of Bitcoins over time:
1. Satoshi Nakamoto
The creator of Bitcoin, who hides behind the moniker Satoshi Nakamoto, remains the major holder of bitcoins. The number of bitcoins that Nakamoto owns today is estimated at around 1.1 million, based on the early mining that he did. This is the equivalent of about $6 billion at today’s exchange rate of 1BTC to 6,098 USD. At least Nakamoto has never touched most of his bitcoins, and neither converted them into real-world currencies nor used them for any other purpose. If he were to sell his entire stash, the value of Bitcoin could plummet in an instant.
2. Bulgaria
Bulgaria is currently sitting on one of the biggest stashes of Bitcoin in the world. How did the European nation come into the possession of this enormous sum of money? A crackdown on organized crime by the Bulgarian law enforcement in May 2017 resulted in the seizure of a stash of 213,519 Bitcoins, enough to pay off a quarter of the country’s national debt.
According to Bulgarian authorities, the criminals used their technical prowess to circumvent taxes. As of June 2018, the virtual coins would be worth more than $1.2 billion. The Bulgarian government has declined to comment on the status of the coins.
3. BitFinex
BitFinex, a crypto exchange, has one of the largest bitcoin wallets with 163,133.38 BTC that are worth approximately $1 billion at the current price of $6,098.24 per bitcoin. The coins are believed to be kept in a cold wallet to protect them from cyber hacks, unauthorized access and other vulnerabilities that a system connected to the internet is prone to.
4. The FBI
The FBI is one of the largest renowned holders of Bitcoin. In September 2013, they brought down Silk Road, the infamous dark web drug bazaar, and seized 144,000 Bitcoin owned by the site’s operator Ross Ulbricht, better known as, “Dread Pirate Roberts”. Ulbricht made critical blunders that allowed investigators to locate the site and link him to it. Users of Silk Road are said to have traded around 9.5 million bitcoins since Ulbricht launched the site in 2011. Even thought the FBI sold a large amount of their Bitcoin holdings or even all, the FBI worth mentioned as they had a fortune in Bitcoin at some point. A large portion of the Bitcoins seized and sold went to Barry Silbert.
5. The Winklevoss Twins
Tyler Winklevoss and Cameron Winklevoss were among the first Bitcoin billionaires. The duo had first gained popularity when they sued the Facebook C.E.O. Mark Zuckerberg for allegedly stealing the idea of creating Facebook from them. They were contacted by Zuckerberg to develop the ConnectU site, which was to become Facebook later on.
They used $11 million of the $65 million cash compensation they received from the legal dispute with Zuckerberg to purchase 1.5 million Bitcoins in 2013. Back then, one Bitcoin traded at $120. That investment has increased more than 20000% since then.
The twins allegedly own around 1 percent of all Bitcoin in circulation. Their combined net worth is approximately 400 million. They created the Windex, funded several bitcoin-related ventures and invested $1.5 million in BitInstant.
6. Garvin Andresen
Although bitcoin is the brainchild of Satoshi Nakamoto, Garvin Andresen is credited as the person who made it what it is today. Garvin is one of the people who has been suspected to be Satoshi, a claim he denies. Rather, he says that he had a close relationship with the anonymous cryptographer for many years. The real Satoshi Nakamoto picked him as his successor in late 2010. Garvin became the chief developer of the open source code that determines how Bitcoin operates – and whether it can survive. He was once paid over $200,000 in Bitcoin by the Bitcoin Foundation for his contributions. He had already cashed out multiple times.
7. Roger Ver
Roger Ver, otherwise known as Bitcoin Jesus, is one of the first Bitcoin billionaires and believed to hold or held at least 100,000 bitcoins. The renowned libertarian allegedly dropped out of college to focus on his bitcoin-related projects. Unlike other crypto billionaires out there who are throwing their cash in the typical private Islands or luxury jets, Ver’s dream is to establish his own libertarian nation where every individual is the absolute owner of their own life and are free to do whatever they wish with their person or property. The controversial bitcoin evangelist renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2014 and relocated permanently to a small Caribbean Island.
8. Barry Silbert
Silbert is a venture capitalist and founder of Digital Currency Group. He was an early adopter of Bitcoin. He purportedly walked away with an eye-watering 48,000 Bitcoins in an auction held by the U.S. Marshals Service in 2014. The US government had confiscated much of the crypto coins from Ross Ulbricht, the alleged operator of the dark web marketplace for drugs and other illegal products. Bitcoin was then worth $350, which means Silbert’s coins have skyrocketed in value from $16.8 million to $288 million.
9. Charlie Shrem
Charlie Shrem is no doubt one of the most controversial Bitcoin millionaires. He invested in a large quantity of Bitcoin in the early days of the cryptocurrency. Shrem was also an active member of the Bitcoin Foundation and founded BitInstant when he was just 22 years old. By the end of December 2014, Shrem had been found guilty of money laundering and received a two-year prison sentence. After his release from federal custody, he unveiled a startup called Intellisys Capital, a company that sells investment portfolios in blockchain companies.
10. Tony Gallippi
A famous business magnate Tony Gallippi is also believed to be one of the big holders of bitcoins. He is the brain behind BitPay, one of the most popular Bitcoin payment service providers in the world. The company was launched in May 2011 and processes over one million dollars per day. Bitpay is also one of the companies to sign contracts with major companies including Microsoft, Dell, TigerDirect, and Newegg. By 2014, the company had employed approximately 100 people.
Conclusion
It is estimated that the top 1000 bitcoin addresses own approximately 35% of the total bitcoin in circulation. There are also thousands of individuals who hold large stashes of bitcoin but have chosen to remain anonymous.
submitted by alifkhalil469 to BtcNewz [link] [comments]

Ten more bitcoin mysteries

Ten more unanswered questions about bit-coin that still intrigue me:
  1. Why did Blockstream's CEO Austin Hill leave the company?
  2. Why and how did Brock Pierce become President of the Bitcoin Foundation?
  3. Where did Gonzague Gay-Bouchery come from, why did Sunlot exclude him a priori from their investigation, and where is he now?
  4. How do the Genesis Mining investors verify that the company has the hashpower it is supposed to have?
  5. Who faked Roger Ver's signature in the OKCoin bitcoin.com contract?
  6. Why was Craig Wright invited to this panel?
  7. Who put the fatal RNG bug into the Blokchain.info wallet, and why?
  8. Why did Samson Mow leave BTC-China?
  9. Did Satoshi know about Ross Ulbricht and Silk Road in Dec/2010?
  10. Why did Kraken want to buy MtGOX's computers and disks?
I hope that some day some punctilious investigative reporter or detective will provide us with the answers. But he should heed Andreas warning: it is dangerous to mess with cypherpunks, pecause they are punks.
submitted by jstolfi to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

CSW: I am Satoshi Nakamoto. I created Bitcoin - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer

CSW: I am Satoshi Nakamoto. I created Bitcoin - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer
bitkan.pro aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
https://preview.redd.it/1iwfewe5p8d31.png?width=1058&format=png&auto=webp&s=382657331bde565effe91030e2d55871cc423b67

Question 1: Both the BCH and BSV communities think that they are the true, original bitcoin from Nakamoto. What do you think was the original idea from Nakamoto?
CSW:My original idea is defined in white paper for no limits. And I also described this in the P2P Foundation. It is a distributed system. Users use it to connect to each other, and the miners, to stop double Spending.
I explain this further late in 2010, I basically said that the network expands to have a number of nodes that become large data center type operations, because it's not about running nodes. People who run nodes are foolish unless that making money, that's it. When I created Bitcoin, it is a overlay network of the peer-to-peer network, the top of peer-to-peer network. We did peer-to-peer.
Peer-to-peer means not what you send to the network, and then another user gets it by the network. That is outside the definition of peer to peer. That is a typical centralized mesh. Why Bitcoin works is that user Alice sends to user Bob,Bob received the transaction. So Bob wrote that he received it. He sent it to the network. IP to IP was one of the fundamental parts of Bitcoin that was removed by core right after I left, basically, I fix Bitcoin and I had the lay out in the first place.
There's no question that what happened, and whatever else and what version of things Nakamoto wanted, because I am Satoshi Nakamoto. I created Bitcoin. Very soon, people will notice that. If you don't like it, I don't care.

Question 2. As the main witnesses of BTC to BCH fork, what do you think was the main reason for the fork at that point of time? Now what do you think about the fork at the time? Have you ever changed your mind?
CSW: There was a BCH fork away from Bitcoin, BTC added a number of things to make cryptocurrency more anonymous, which makes it illegal, which means the government can shut it down. Don’t ever believe the government can’t stop bitcoin. Government, the US government and Chinese government could stop bitcoin in a heartbeat. They are going to follow international law to shut down. The Liberty Reserve closed down involved 42 countries working together. It involved basically a distributive system of 10,000 different operations. Not Raspberry pie nodes because it is only 15 real BTC nodes, operators to ran money system. We can't work to unable governments to see machines.
If the criminal use of bitcoin is to become anonymous that government can seize machines, can arrest people, can torture by law. The American government can enforce orders in China. So BTC wanted to make something that was not bitcoin. It wanted to change bitcoin further. So BTC split away from bitcoin. That's the fork. Bitcoin didn't change. I make sure we kept going.
Jihan and Bitmain. I would like to have a talk about what we are planning, and the mining, we are building. Jihan and Bitmain, took the information to go into confidence and make sure that there was a fork. So this fork happened because Jihan and Bitmain are basically a bunch of lying stuff, and that would be found out later.
The second fork was only last year. That was with BCH. Just to keep it simple. Bitcoin vary again.
There’s no system of bitcoin is out to try to make it illegal, to make it criminal, to make it anonymous. Roger Ver, who helps from things like Silk Road and Charlie's friend money laundering operation, which Charlie's friend went to jail for. Other people like them that invested a lot of the dark websites, which all under investigation at the moment, which will be founded to watch in the next several years.
People like Roger and even Jihan, wanted to use bitcoin to take the illegal money and transfer, they want it to be a dark web system. So they added extra objects to change the bitcoin further. They try to allow it to be more anonymous in a different way. So the simple thing is, there is bitcoin as I created, and there is bitcoin designed to be illegal and then it forks.

Question 3. Finally, can we invite Dr. Craig and Mr. Jiang to talk about each other's technology l and vision? What is the most worthwhile point to learn?
CSW:Sorry, I don’t look at those broken versions of bitcoin. I have no interest in learning about how people don’t want to understand bitcoin, how about you want to see the value and how they want to create the system or see these cryptocurrencies in the 90s. If people want to do that, that’s all their choice, but I am not interested in watching them go down in flames. Thank you.

Jiang asked CSW: You have ever wondered why there isn't a 0 in Base58 encodings. (Satoshi, the creator of Base58 explicitly took out 0 and O to avoid confusion). Why didn't you even know the Base58 encoding if you are Satoshi?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9apx40/professor_technobabble_wondering_why_there_isnt_a/
CSW: He's supposedly trying to mislead the audience by making out the checksum to pass off the transaction. He is basically trying to lie to the people and the audience, making them seen that I don’t understand bitcoin. If you look at why it works, the address was not part of the bitcoin. Bitcoin is a wallet, exchange peer-to-peer with the template.
Basically, why does this work is that you have is a transaction that has a checksum to send between wallets. That checksum is a relevant. It never goes into the bitcoin network. The checksum is added only to ensure the transaction to the network while a wallet is correct. The original version of bitcoin didn’t eventually work that way. So what he is trying to mislead you is to say is what I don’t understand checksum etc., which is the lie propagate by people like Bitmain, where insists what it is you do a checksum of the code and then you hand it up.
And the third part of this is very simply put. Without the checksum, the transaction sends to the network properly. The checksum is purely a wallet function, so you can add any checksum function and Wormhole would allow this work. Wormhole was an attempt to make an illegal system. Wormhole is another of these things because Jihan and the others wanted to take money out of China. They work with people to do money laundering, so the value that they see of bitcoin is to help money laundering. So they want to try and lie to people and make it that I don’t understand this technology, because they want to keep their money laundering scam going. So if you actually look at my posts, you will see that I've already explained the checksum in details. If you look at the work bitcoin transaction, you will see there has no transaction checksum. No one wants you to look at that because they want you to stay stupid and ignorant, because spending money out of you requires that you are dumb.

Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate.
bitkan.pro aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
submitted by BitKan to btc [link] [comments]

The Astounding Incompetence, Negligence, and Dishonesty of the Bitcoin Unlimited Developers

On August 26, 2016 someone noticed that their Classic node had been forked off of the "Big Blocks Testnet" that Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were running. Neither implementation was testing their consensus code on any other testnets; this was effectively the only testnet being used to test either codebase. The issue was due to a block on the testnet that was mined on July 30, almost a full month prior to anyone noticing the fork at all, which was in violation of the BIP109 specification that Classic miners were purportedly adhering to at the time. Gregory Maxwell observed:
That was a month ago, but it's only being noticed now. I guess this is demonstrating that you are releasing Bitcoin Classic without much testing and that almost no one else is either? :-/
The transaction in question doesn't look at all unusual, other than being large. It was, incidentally, mined by pool.bitcoin.com, which was signaling support for BIP109 in the same block it mined that BIP 109 violating transaction.
Later that day, Maxwell asked Roger Ver to clarify whether he was actually running Bitcoin Classic on the bitcoin.com mining pool, who dodged the question and responded with a vacuous reply that attempted to inexplicably change the subject to "censorship" instead.
Andrew Stone (the lead developer of Bitcoin Unlimited) voiced confusion about BIP109 and how Bitcoin Unlimited violated the specification for it (while falsely signaling support for it). He later argued that Bitcoin Unlimited didn't need to bother adhering to specifications that it signaled support for, and that doing so would violate the philosophy of the implementation. Peter Rizun shared this view. Neither developer was able to answer Maxwell's direct question about the violation of BIP109 §4/5, which had resulted in the consensus divergence (fork).
Despite Maxwell having provided a direct link to the transaction violating BIP109 that caused the chain split, and explaining in detail what the results of this were, later Andrew Stone said:
I haven't even bothered to find out the exact cause. We have had BUIP016 passed to adhere to strict BIP109 compatibility (at least in what we generate) by merging Classic code, but BIP109 is DOA -- so no-one bothered to do it.
I think that the only value to be had from this episode is to realise that consensus rules should be kept to an absolute, money-function-protecting minimum. If this was on mainnet, I'll be the Classic users would be unhappy to be forked onto a minority branch because of some arbitrary limit that is yet another thing would have needed to be fought over as machine performance improves but the limit stays the same.
Incredibly, when a confused user expressed disbelief regarding the fork, Andrew Stone responded:
Really? There was no classic fork? As i said i didnt bother to investigate. Can you give me a link to more info? Its important to combat this fud.
Of course, the proof of the fork (and the BIP109-violating block/transaction) had already been provided to Stone by Maxwell. Andrew Stone was willing to believe that the entire fork was imaginary, in the face of verifiable proof of the incident. He admits that he didn't investigate the subject at all, even though that was the only testnet that Unlimited could have possibly been performing any meaningful tests on at the time, and even though this fork forced Classic to abandon BIP109 entirely, leaving it vulnerable to the types of attacks that Gavin Andresen described in his Guided Tour of the 2mb Fork:
“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous... It is set to 1.3 gigabytes, which is big enough so none of the blocks currently in the block chain would hit it, but small enough to make it impossible to create poison blocks that take minutes to validate.
As a result of this fork (which Stone was clueless enough to doubt had even happened), Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were both left vulnerable to such attacks. Fascinatingly, this fact did not seem to bother the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited at all.
On November 17, 2016 Andrew Stone decided to post an article titled A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core wherein he claimed:
Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing as you will see in the rest of this document.
The irony of this claim should soon become very apparent.
In the rest of the article, Stone wrote with venomous and overtly hostile rhetoric:
As we mine the garbage in the Bitcoin Core code together... I want you to realise that these issues are systemic to Core
He went on to describe what he believed to be multiple bugs that had gone unnoticed by the Core developers, and concluded his article with the following paragraph:
I hope when reading these issues, you will realise that the Bitcoin Unlimited team might actually be the most careful committers and testers, with a very broad and dedicated test infrastructure. And I hope that you will see these Bitcoin Core commits— bugs that are not tricky and esoteric, but simple issues that well known to average software engineers —and commits of “Very Ugly Hack” code that do not reflect the care required for an important financial network. I hope that you will realise that, contrary to statements from Adam Back and others, the Core team does not have unique skills and abilities that qualify them to administer this network.
As soon as the article was published, it was immediately and thoroughly debunked. The "bugs" didn't exist in the current Core codebase; some were results of how Andrew had "mucked with wallet code enough to break" it, and "many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand", or had been fixed years ago in Core, and thus only affected obsolete clients (ironically including Bitcoin Unlimited itself).
As Gregory Maxwell said:
Perhaps the biggest and most concerning danger here isn't that they don't know what they're doing-- but that they don't know what they don't know... to the point where this is their best attempt at criticism.
Amusingly enough, in the "Let's Lose Some Money" section of the article, Stone disparages an unnamed developer for leaving poor comments in a portion of the code, unwittingly making fun of Satoshi himself in the process.
To summarize: Stone set out to criticize the Core developer team, and in the process revealed that he did not understand the codebase he was working on, had in fact personally introduced the majority of the bugs that he was criticizing, and was actually completely unable to identify any bugs that existed in current versions Core. Worst of all, even after receiving feedback on his article, he did not appear to comprehend (much less appreciate) any of these facts.
On January 27, 2017, Bitcoin Unlimited excitedly released v1.0 of their software, announcing:
The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.
A mere 2 days later, on January 29, their code accidentally attempted to hard-fork the network. Despite there being a very clear and straightforward comment in Bitcoin Core explaining the space reservation for coinbase transactions in the code, Bitcoin Unlimited obliviously merged a bug into their client which resulted in an invalid block (23 bytes larger than 1MB) being mined by Roger Ver's Bitcoin.com mining pool on January 29, 2017, costing the pool a minimum of 13.2 bitcoins. A large portion of Bitcoin Unlimited nodes and miners (which naively accepted this block as valid) were temporarily banned from the network as a result, as well.
The code change in question revealed that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers were not only "commenting out and replacing code without understanding what it's for" as well as bypassing multiple safety-checks that should have prevented such issues from occurring, but that they were not performing any peer review or testing whatsoever of many of the code changes they were making. This particular bug was pushed directly to the master branch of Bitcoin Unlimited (by Andrew Stone), without any associated pull requests to handle the merge or any reviewers involved to double-check the update. This once again exposed the unprofessionalism and negligence of the development team and process of Bitcoin Unlimited, and in this case, irrefutably had a negative effect in the real world by costing Bitcoin.com thousands of dollars worth of coins.
In effect, this was the first public mainnet fork attempt by Bitcoin Unlimited. Unsurprisingly, the attempt failed, costing the would-be forkers real bitcoins as a result. It is possible that the costs of this bug are much larger than the lost rewards and fees from this block alone, as other Bitcoin Unlimited miners may have been expending hash power in the effort to mine slightly-oversized (invalid) blocks prior to this incident, inadvertently wasting resources in the doomed pursuit of invalid coins.
On March 14, 2017, a remote exploit vulnerability discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited crashed 75% of the BU nodes on the network in a matter of minutes.
In order to downplay the incident, Andrew Stone rapidly published an article which attempted to imply that the remote-exploit bug also affected Core nodes by claiming that:
approximately 5% of the “Satoshi” Bitcoin clients (Core, Unlimited, XT) temporarily dropped off of the network
In reddit comments, he lied even more explicitly, describing it as "a bug whose effects you can see as approximate 5% drop in Core node counts" as well as a "network-wide Bitcoin client failure". He went so far as to claim:
the Bitcoin Unlimited team found the issue, identified it as an attack and fixed the problem before the Core team chose to ignore it
The vulnerability in question was in thinblock.cpp, which has never been part of Bitcoin Core; in other words, this vulnerability only affected Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
In the same Medium article, Andrew Stone appears to have doctored images to further deceive readers. In the reddit thread discussing this deception, Andrew Stone denied that he had maliciously edited the images in question, but when questioned in-depth on the subject, he resorted to citing his own doctored images as sources and refused to respond to further requests for clarification or replication steps.
Beyond that, the same incident report (and images) conspicuously omitted the fact that the alleged "5% drop" on the screenshotted (and photoshopped) node-graph was actually due to the node crawler having been rebooted, rather than any problems with Core nodes. This fact was plainly displayed on the 21 website that the graph originated from, but no mention of it was made in Stone's article or report, even after he was made aware of it and asked to revise or retract his deceptive statements.
There were actually 3 (fundamentally identical) Xthin-assert exploits that Unlimited developers unwittingly publicized during this episode, which caused problems for Bitcoin Classic, which was also vulnerable.
On top of all of the above, the vulnerable code in question had gone unnoticed for 10 months, and despite the Unlimited developers (including Andrew Stone) claiming to have (eventually) discovered the bug themselves, it later came out that this was another lie; an external security researcher had actually discovered it and disclosed it privately to them. This researcher provided the following quotes regarding Bitcoin Unlimited:
I am quite beside myself at how a project that aims to power a $20 billion network can make beginner’s mistakes like this.
I am rather dismayed at the poor level of code quality in Bitcoin Unlimited and I suspect there [is] a raft of other issues
The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,
it doesn’t help if the software project is not discreet about fixing critical issues like this.
In this case, the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb
In what appeared to be a desperate attempt to distract from the fundamental ineptitude that this vulnerability exposed, Bitcoin Unlimited supporters (including Andrew Stone himself) attempted to change the focus to a tweet that Peter Todd made about the vulnerability, blaming him for exposing it and prompting attackers to exploit it... but other Unlimited developers revealed that the attacks had actually begun well before Todd had tweeted about the vulnerability. This was pointed out many times, even by Todd himself, but Stone ignored these facts a week later, and shamelessly lied about the timeline in a propagandistic effort at distraction and misdirection.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

OKCoin offers $20,000 USD reward for disproving Mr. Roger Ver’s forgery claim against Star Xu.

OKCoin’s response
Dropbox of files: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7dudlieancb1tr0/AAA0xmqujCZsvaQ0f_Uf-03Da?dl=0
1. Operating Bitcoin.com facing a new counterparty The Ripple FinCen findings related to dealing with Roger Ver set off an internal review related to conducting further business with Mr. Roger Ver. OKCoin’s team came to a decision to discontinue facing Mr. Ver on the management of Bitcoin.com for two core reasons. The first being the findings of the Ripple investigation. The second, on further review, the contract was not in good standing as it did not contain the OKCoin legal entity in the contract. It should also be made aware that OKCoin made every effort to continue management of Bitcoin.com facing a different counterpart under a legally binding contract.
2. Different Versions of the Contract In our review post the Ripple FinCen findings, it was found that v7 (the contract Mr. Ver holds) was not the version of the contract which our finance and accounting department held (v8) digitally and physically. In the past 24 hours, Mr. Ver made public false accusations that CEO Star Xu forged the v8 contract. There was never forgery committed by Star Xu. We would find such forgery to be a serious breach and view the actions of Mr. Ver to assume and claim forgery a seriously misplaced allegation. We will further review every course of action in light of these false accusations by Mr. Ver. OKCoin holds the original v8 hardcopy contract signed by a former employee at OKCoin and this contract was given to our finance department in December 2014. The document is open to any forensic investigation on the date it was signed. OKCoin also has the digital contract sent to our finance department over QQ on December 16th, 2014 by said former employee. We have provided these screenshots. The former employee and Mr. Ver are friends and formerly worked together at Blockchain.info.
Dropbox Exhibit A
3. Oath from CEO Star Xu: "I have attached the digital communications and attachment of the v8 contract that my former colleague sent via QQ to our accountant on December 16th, 2014. The digital and hardcopy of the original signed contract by the former employee are held internally by our finance and operation teams. If I am found to have forged the v8 contract, I face legal ramifications. I welcome Mr. Ver to hire a forensic investigator to examine the authenticity of the hard copy contract. I can promise God on my family’s name that I did not forge the contract. I wonder if Mr. Ver and my former colleague would dare make the same oath of honesty.”
OKCoin will reward $20,000 USD to anyone with authentication skills confirming that the digital and hardcopy of v8 are genuine and signed from December of 2014 by our former employee.
Those with information can send findings to [email protected]
4. Mr. Roger Ver going public: Mr. Roger Ver first enacted the threat of use of public opinion as a method of pressuring OKCoin into settling on an agreement. Mr. Ver added a reporter Mr. Jon Southurst of Coindesk into the email communications. OKCoin only released a public notice after being contacted by media for comments. It was relayed to OKCoin that Mr. Roger Ver had contacted them to release openly the private communications. We are regretful that this has become a public matter due to the tactics Mr. Ver used.
Dropbox Exhibit B
5. Mr. Roger Ver’s accusations of intent to money launder: Mr. Roger Ver falsely accused OKCoin of intending to money launder when it is shown in multiple correspondence that a new contract and new counterpart to receive funds were required for continued management of Bitcoin.com. Mr. Ver has repeatedly shown to be quick to bully and make false allegations in his business dealings. No payment was ever made, attempted, nor intended to a counterparty other than Mr. Ver in the course of OKCoin’s management of Bitcoin.com
Dropbox Exhibit C
6. OKCoin’s bitcoin.com contained no ads: Everyone is free to view the Bitcoin.com that was created and used by OKCoin here in the Web Archives: https://web.archive.org/web/20150315024642/http://www.bitcoin.com/
There are no OKCoin ads on the Bitcoin.com that we managed. OKCoin paid Mr. Ver $10,000 USD per month and developed and operated the website as agreed upon. We also tried to court interested parties to advertise on the website. Mr. Ver continually threatened to use the one month termination notice clause contained in the contract for failing to generate further revenue. These threats occurred while simultaneously asking and expecting OKCoin to continue in good faith to improve Bitcoin.com despite that overhang. Mr. Ver even suggested to redirect Bitcoin.com to OKCoin or OKLink for an exorbitant sum..
Mr. Ver sought to close the agreement for the full $550,000 USD dollars remaining followed by an attempt to ask for $200,000 or lower. Mr. Ver did not care for the proper management of Bitcoin.com but was rather solely focused on extracting more money from it.
We have provided the sources of these communications.
Dropbox Exhibit D
7. OKCoin is not insolvent: To our disappointment, this public slander by Mr. Ver included directly speculating that OKCoin is insolvent, under financial duress and may become the next Mt. Gox. These actions show a lack of respect and proper due diligence. Time will prove that OKCoin’s financial health is strong. We are currently executing on several business projects in the fintech space to improve the lives of consumers and businesses. We generate healthy revenues and have received significant venture capital investments. Our customer service is 24/7 and we welcome any user who has funds on OKCoin to test and withdraw funds.
It should be noted that Mr. Ver prior to the Mt. Gox event reported to the public that Mt. Gox had no problems as can be seen in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4SCAw264qM
8. OKCoin’s commitment to innovation: We would like to apologize to our customers for this distraction and for wasting your time over such a small matter. OKCoin will continue to release better and better products as a leader in financial technology and we would like to thank again our customers and supporters of our company.
submitted by Okcoinbtc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

18+ AMA with Roger Ver / Bitcoin Cash! Roger Ver on the Economic Code of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (August 2017) Roger Ver on the Alex Jones Show 2/8/2018 - Bitcoin and the Cryptocurrency Revolution BitCoin Jesus Roger Ver Interview - CryptoCurrency For Beginners (Part 4) - Bitcoin Gangstas Roger Ver Retorts Hearn - The Death of Bitcoin Has Been Greatly Exaggerated - TDV Interviews

As things progressed, Bitcoin.com founder Roger Ver also made a public video declaring Wright a fraud. This was after underhandedly working with Bitcoin ABC developers to code up rolling checkpoints into the ABC Bitcoin Cash software, permanently splitting the Bitcoin network for the second and final time—an act for which Roger is also being sued by other disenfranchised parties in Florida ... Crypto Crime Cartel: How Roger Ver-led BCH tried to corrupt Bitcoin. Business 1 hour ago . Jordan Atkins . We have been relentlessly covering the Crypto Crime Cartel that is polluting the digital asset ecosystem and preventing it from realizing its potential as a technology that will transform society for the better. These are companies, together with the employees propping them, who are ... Just recently Bitcoin.com’s Roger Ver donated $10,000 worth of bitcoin cash to the charitable organization Casa de Amparo, a 501(c)(3) charity that helps children escape child abuse and neglect. – Roger Ver – 2011 . Bitcoin is one of the most important inventions in all of human history. For the first time ever, everyone can send or receive any amount of money with anyone else, anywhere on the planet, conveniently and without restriction. It’s the dawn of a better, more free world. Roger Ver . Bitcoin Angel Investor. In 1999 Roger began his career by founding MemoryDealers.com ... Crypto entrepreneur Roger Ver has distanced himself from the unfolding fraud allegations surrounding the BitClub Network. Four members of the suspected Ponzi scheme were this week arrested by US ...

[index] [51308] [35447] [18932] [28842] [11060] [30374] [22043] [24027] [42480] [8257]

18+ AMA with Roger Ver / Bitcoin Cash!

Roger Ver on the Alex Jones Show 2/8/2018 - Bitcoin and the Cryptocurrency Revolution FloydAnderson. Loading... Unsubscribe from FloydAnderson? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed ... Jeff interviews top Bitcoin expert, Roger Ver, to counter the mis-information about the death of Bitcoin that has been circulating recently. Topics include: Mike Hearn's declaration on the death ... Roger Ver Criminal Story: BitCoin Jesus Details Emotional Prison Rape In US Country - Part 1 Watch PART 2 Of This Video: https://youtu.be/6zAhNZIkhto How to ... Guest Jeff Burwick, CEO Bitcoin ATM on CNBC. This wasn't as bad as the previous CNBC section on bitcoins. https://bitcoinatm.com/ Roger Ver and the Bitcoin.com team were present at the AIMA (Alternative Investment Management Association) where traditional banks, hedge funds and other large financial institutions gathered.

#