Bitcoin Tech Talk Programming Bitcoin

JPMorgan suppresses gold & silver prices to prop up the USDollar - via "naked short selling" of GLD & SLV ETFs. Now AXA (which owns $94 million of JPMorgan stock) may be trying to suppress Bitcoin price - via tiny blocks. But AXA will fail - because the market will always "maximize coinholder value"

TL;DR
As a bitcoin user (miner, hodler, investor) you have all the power - simply due to the nature of markets and open-source software. Core/Blockstream, and their owners at AXA, can try to manipulate the market and the software for a while, by paying off devs who prefer tiny blocks, or censoring the news, or conducting endless meetings - but in the end, you know that they have no real control over you, because endless meetings are bullshit, and code and markets are everything.
Bitcoin volume, adoption, blocksize and price have been rising steadily for the past 7 years. And they will continue to do so - with or without the cooperation of Core/Blockstream and the Chinese miners - because just like publicly held corporations always tend to "maximize shareholder value, publicly held cryptocurrencies always tend to "maximize coinholder value".
How much of a position does AXA have in JPMorgan?
AXA currently holds about $94 million in JPMorgan stock.
http://zolmax.com/investing/axa-has-94718000-position-in-jpmorgan-chase-co-jpm/794122.html
https://archive.is/HExxH
Admittedly this is not a whole lot, when you consider that the total of JPMorgan's outstanding shares is currently around USD 3.657 billion.
But still it does provide a suggestive indication of how these big financial firms are all in bed with each other. Plus the leaders of these big financial firms also tend to hang out which each other professionally and socially, and are motivated to protect the overall system of "the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" which allows them to rule the world.
How does JPMorgan use paper GLD and SLV ETFs to suppress the price of physical gold and silver?
As many people know, whistleblower Andrew Maguire exposed the massive criminal scandal where JPMorgan has been fraudulently manipulating gold and silver prices for years.
JPMorgan does this via the SLV and GLD ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds).
The reason they do it is in order to artificially suppress the price of gold and silver using "naked short-selling":
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=andrew+maguire+gata+jpmorgan+nake+short&t=hd&ia=videos
How exactly does JPMorgan manage to commit this kind of massive fraud?
It's easy!
There's actually about 100x more "phantom" or fake silver and gold in existence (in the form of "paper" certificates - SLV and GLD ETFs) - versus actual "physical" gold and silver that you can take delivery on and hold in your hand.
That means that if everyone holding fake/paper SLV & GLD ETF certificates were to suddenly demand "physical delivery" at the same moment, then only 1% of those people would receive actual physical silver and gold - and the rest would get the "equivalent" in dollars. This is all well-known, and clearly spelled out in the fine print of the GLD and SLV ETF contracts.
(This is similar to "fractional reserve" where almost no banks have enough actual money to cover all deposits. This means that if everyone showed up at the bank on the same day and demanded their money, the bank would go bankrupt.)
So, in order to fraudulently suppress the price of gold and silver (and, in turn, prevent the USDollar from crashing), JPMorgan functions as a kind of "bear whale", dumping "phantom" gold and silver on the market in the form of worthless "paper" SLV and GLD ETF certificates, "whenever the need arises" - ie, whenever the US Dollar price starts to drop "too much", and/or whenever the gold and silver prices start to rise "too much".
(This is similar to the "plunge protection team" liquidity providers, who are well-known for preventing stock market crashes, by throwing around their endlessly printed supply of "fantasy fiat", buying up stocks to artificially prevent their prices from crashing. This endless money-printing and market manipulation actually destroys one of the main purposes of capitalism - which is to facilitate "price discovery" in order to reward successful companies and punish unsuccessful ones, to make sure that they actually deliver the goods and services that people need in the real world.)
Is there an ELI5 example of how "naked short selling" works in the real world?
Yes there is!
The following example was originally developed by Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne - who, as many people know, is very passionate about using Bitcoin not only as cash, but also to settle stock trades - because his company Overstock got burned when Wall Street illegally attacked it using naked short selling:
Here's how naked short-selling works: Imagine you travel to a small foreign island on vacation. Instead of going to an exchange office in your hotel to turn your dollars into Island Rubles, the country instead gives you a small printing press and makes you a deal: Print as many Island Rubles as you like, then on the way out of the country you can settle your account. So you take your printing press, print out gigantic quantities of Rubles and start buying goods and services. Before long, the cash you’ve churned out floods the market, and the currency's value plummets. Do this long enough and you'll crack the currency entirely; the loaf of bread that cost the equivalent of one American dollar the day you arrived now costs less than a cent.
With prices completely depressed, you keep printing money and buy everything of value - homes, cars, priceless works of art. You then load it all into a cargo ship and head home. On the way out of the country, you have to settle your account with the currency office. But the Island Rubles you printed are now worthless, so it takes just a handful of U.S. dollars to settle your debt. Arriving home with your cargo ship, you sell all the island riches you bought at a discount and make a fortune.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-naked-swindle-20100405
Why isn't anybody stopping JPMorgan from using "naked short selling" to fraudulently suppress gold and silver prices?
Because "certain people" benefit!
Of course, this "naked short selling" (selling a "phantom" asset which doesn't actually exist in order to suppress the price of the "real" asset) is actually illegal - but JPMorgan is allowed to get away with it, because suppressing the gold and silver price helps prop up the United States and world's major "fantasy fiat" financial institutions - which would be bankrupt without this kind of "artificial life support."
How does suppressing the gold and silver price help governments and banks?
If gold and silver (and Bitcoin!) rose to their actual "fair market value", then the US dollar (and most other national "fiat" currencies) would crash - and many major financial institutions would be exposed as bankrupt. Also, many "derivatives contracts" would default - and only a tiny percentage of defaults would destroy most major financial companies' balance sheets. (For example, see Deutsche Bank - which is may become "the next Lehman", due to having around around $80 trillion in dangerous derivatives exposure.)
So, major financial firms like JPMorgan are highly motivated to prevent a "real" (honest) market from existing for "counterparty-free" assets such as physical gold and silver (and Bitcoin!)
So, JPMorgan fraudulently manipulate the precious-metals market, by flooding it with 100x more "phantom" "silver" and "gold" in the form of worthless GLD and SLV ETF certificates.
Basically, JPMorgan is doing the "dirty work" to keep the US government and its "too-big-to-fail" banks and other financial institutions afloat, on "artificial life support".
Otherwise, without this GLD & SLV ETF "naked short selling" involving market manipulation and fraud, the US government - and most major US financial institutions, as well as many major overseas financial institutions, and most central banks - would all be exposed as bankrupt, once traders and investors discovered the real price of gold and silver.
So, what does this have to do with AXA and Bitcoin?
Just like JPMorgan wants to suppress the price of gold and silver to prop up the USDollar, it is reasonable to assume that AXA and other major financial players probably also want to suppress the price of Bitcoin for the same reasons - in order to postpone the inevitable day when the so-called "assets" on their balance sheets (denominated in US Dollars and other "fantasy fiat" currencies, as well as derivatives) are exposed as being worthless.
Actually, only the motives are the same, while the means would be quite different - ie, certain governments or banks might want to suppress the Bitcoin price - but they wouldn't be able to use "naked short selling" to do it.
As we know, this is because with Bitcoin, people can now simply demand "cryptographic proof" of how many bitcoins are really out there - instead of just "trusting" some auditor claiming there is so much gold and silver in a vault - or "trusting" that a gold bar isn't actually filled with worthless tungsten (which happens to have about the same "molecular weight" as gold, so these kinds of counterfeit gold bars have been a serious problem).
(And, by the way: hopefully it should also be impossible to do "fractional reserve" using "level 2" sidechains such as the Lightning Network - although that still remains to be seen. =)
So, even though it should not be possible to flood the market with "phantom" Bitcoins (since people can always demand "cryptographic proof of reserves"), AXA could instead use a totally different tactic to suppress the price: by suppressing Bitcoin trading volume - explained further below.
Does AXA does actually have the motives to be suppressing the Bitcoin price - right now?
Yes, they do!
As described above, the only thing which gives giant banking and finance companies like JPMorgan and AXA the appearance of solvency is massive accounting fraud and market manipulation.
They use the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" (ie, debt-backed "currency", endlessly printed out of thin air) - and the never-ending carrousel of the worldwide derivatives casino, currently worth around 1.2 quadrillion dollars - to "paper over" their losses, and to prevent anyone from discovering that most major insurance firms like AXA - and most major banks - would already be considered bankrupt, if you counted only their real assets. (This is known as "mark-to-market" - which they hate to do. They much prefer to do "mark-to-model" which some people call "mark-to-fantasy" - ie, fraudulent accounting based on "phantom" assets" and rampant market manipulation.)
So, it is public knowledge that nearly all "too-big-to-fail" financial companies like AXA (and JPMorgan) would be considered bankrupt if their fraudulent accounting practices were exposed - which rely on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" and the "never-ending carrousel of the derivatives casino" to maintain the façade of solvency:
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
Does AXA actually have the means to to be suppressing the Bitcoin price... right now?
Yes, they do!
For example, AXA could decide to support economically ignorant devs like Greg Maxwell (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back (CEO of Blockstream), and the other Core devs who support Blockstream's "roadmap" based on tiny blocks.
Wait - isn't AXA already doing precisely that?
Yes, they are!
As we all know, AXA has invested tens of millions of dollars in Blockstream, and Blockstream is indeed fighting tooth and nail against bigger blocks for Bitcoin.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
So, how would artificially tiny blocks artificially suppress the Bitcoin price?
This is pretty much based on common sense - plus it's also been formalized and roughly quantified in concepts involving networking and economics, such as "Metcalfe's Law".
Metcalfe's Law says pretty much what you'd expect it to say - ie: the more people that use a system, the more valuable that system is.
More precisely: the value of a system is proportional to the square of the number of users in that system - which also makes sense, since when there are N users in a system, the number of connections between them is N*(N - 1)2 which is "on the order of" N squared.
In fact, Metcalfe's Law has been shown to hold for various types of networks and markets - including faxes, internet, national currencies, etc.
Does Metcalfe's Law apply to Bitcoin?
Yes, it does!
The past 7 years of data also indicates - as predicted - that Metcalfe's Law also does indeed apply to Bitcoin as well.
Graphs show that during the 5 years before Blockstream got involved with trying to artificially suppress the Bitcoin price via their policy of artificially tiny blocks, Bitcoin prices were roughly in proportion to the square of the (actual) Bitcoin blocksizes.
Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dfb3bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/
During all those years, actual blocksizes were still low enough to not bump into the artificial "ceiling" of the artificial 1 MB "max blocksize" limit - which, remember, was only there as a temporary anti-spam measure, so it was deliberately set to be much higher than any actual blocksize, and everyone knew that this limit would be removed well before actual blocksizes started getting close to that 1 MB "max blocksize" limit.
But now that Bitcoin volume can't go up due to hitting the artificial "max blocksize" 1 MB limit (unless perhaps some people do bigger-value transactions), Bitcoin price also can't go up either:
Bitcoin's market price is trying to rally, but it is currently constrained by Core/Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit. Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream. The market will always win - either with or without the Chinese miners.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ipb4q/bitcoins_market_price_is_trying_to_rally_but_it/
So what does this all have to do with that meeting in Silicon Valley this weekend, between Core/Blockstream and the Chinese miners?
This latest episode in the never-ending saga of the "Bitcoin blocksize debates" is yet another centralized, non-transparent, invite-only stalling non-scaling, no-industry-invited, no-solutions-allowed, "friendly" meeting being held this weekend - at the very last moment when Blockstream/Core failed to comply with the expiration date for their previous stalling non-scaling non-agreement:
The Fed/FOMC holds meetings to decide on money supply. Core/Blockstream & Chinese miners now hold meetings to decide on money velocity. Both are centralized decision-making. Both are the wrong approach.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vfkpthe_fedfomc_holds_meetings_to_decide_on_money/
So, on the expiration date of the HK stalling / non-scaling non-agreement, Viacoin scammer u/btcdrak calls a meeting with no customer-facing businesses invited (just Chinese miners & Core/Blockstream), and no solutions/agreements allowed, and no transparency (just a transcript from u/kanzure). WTF!?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vgwe7/so_on_the_expiration_date_of_the_hk_stalling/
This disastrous, desperate meeting is the latest example of how Bitcoin's so-called "governance" is being hijacked by some anonymous scammer named u/btcdrak who created a shitcoin called Viacoin and who's a subcontractor for Blockstream - calling yet another last-minute stalling / non-scaling meeting on the expiration date of Core/Blockstream's previous last-minute stalling / non-scaling non-agreement - and this non-scaling meeting is invite-only for Chinese miners and Core/Blockstream (with no actual Bitcoin businesses invited) - and economic idiot u/maaku7 who also brought us yet another shitcoin called Freicoin is now telling us that no actual solutions will be provided because no actual agreements will be allowed - and this invite-only no-industry no-solutions / no-agreements non-event will be manually transcribed by some guy named u/kanzure who hates u/Peter__R (note: u/Peter__R gave us actual solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited and massive on-chain scaling via XThin) - and as usual this invite-only non-scaling no-solutions / no-agreements no-industry invite-only non-event is being paid for by some fantasy fiat finance firm AXA whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group which will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds.**
What is the purpose of this meeting?
The "organizers" and other people involved - u/btcdrak and u/maaku7 - say that this is just a "friendly" meeting - and it is specifically forbidden for any "agreements" (or scaling solutions) to come out of this meeting.
What good is a meeting if no agreements or solutions can some out of it?
Good question!
A meeting where solutions are explicitly prohibited is actually perfect for Blockstream's goals - because currently the status quo "max blocksize" is 1 MB, and they want to keep it that way.
So, they want to leverage the "inertia" to maintain the status quo - while pretending to do something, and getting friendly with the miners (and possibly making them other "offers" or "inducements").
So this meeting is just another stalling tactic, like all the previous ones.
Only now, after the community has seen this over and over, Blockstream has finally had to publicly admit that it is specifically forbidden for any "agreements" (or scaling solutions) to come out of this meeting - which makes it very obvious to everyone that this whole meeting is just an empty gesture.
So, why is this never-ending shit-show still going on?
Mainly due to inertia on the part of many users, and dishonesty on the part of Core/Blockstream devs.
Currently there is a vocal group of 57 devs and wannabe devs who are associated with Core/Blockstream - who refuse to remove the obsolete, temporary anti-spam measure (or "kludge") which historically restricted Bitcoin throughput to a 1 MB "max blocksize".
Somehow (via a combination of media manipulation, domain squatting, censorship, staged international Bitcoin stalling "scaling" meetings and congresses, fraudulent non-agreements, and other dishonest pressure tactics) they've managed to convince everyone that they can somehow dictate to everyone else how Bitcoin governance should be done.
vampireban wants you to believe that "a lot of people voted" and "there is consensus" for Core's "roadmap". But he really means only 57 people voted. And most of them aren't devs and/or don't understand markets. Satoshi designed Bitcoin for the economic majority to vote - not just 57 people.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ecx69/uvampireban_wants_you_to_believe_that_a_lot_of/
Meanwhile, pretty much everyone else in Bitcoin - ie, everyone who's not involved with Blockstream - knows that Bitcoin can and should have bigger blocks by now, to enable increased adoption, volume, and price, as shown by the following points:
(1) Most miners, and investors, and Satoshi himself, all expected Bitcoin to have much bigger blocks by now - but these facts are censored on most of the media controlled by Core/Blockstream-associated devs and their friends:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/
The moderators of r\bitcoin have now removed a post which was just quotes by Satoshi Nakamoto.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49l4uh/the_moderators_of_rbitcoin_have_now_removed_a/
(2) Research has repeatedly shown that 4 MB blocks would work fine with people's existing hardware and bandwidth - such as the Cornell study, plus empirical studies in the field done by jtoomim:
https://np.reddit.com/btc+bitcoin/search?q=cornell+4+mb&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
(3) Even leading Bitcoin figures such as Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and r\bitcoin censor moderator u/theymos have publicly stated that 2 MB blocks would work fine (in their rare moments of honesty, before they somehow became corrupted):
theymos 1/31/2013: "I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4qopcw/utheymos_1312013_i_strongly_disagree_with_the/
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
So... What can we do now to stop giant financial institutions like AXA from artificially suppressing Bitcoin adoption, volume and price?
It's not as hard as it might seem - but it might (initially) be a slow process!
First of all, more and more people can simply avoid using crippled code with an artificially tiny "max blocksize" limit of 1 MB produced by teams of dishonest developers like Core/Blockstream who are getting paid off by AXA.
Other, more powerful Bitcoin code is available - such as Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynoaa/announcing_bitcoin_unlimited/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4089aj/im_working_on_a_project_called_bitcoin_classic_to/
In addition, proposals for massive on-chain scaling have also been proposed, implemented, and tested - such as Xthin:
https://np.reddit.com/btc+bitcoin/search?q=xthin+author%3Apeter__r&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
Hasn't the market already rejected other solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic?
Actually, no!
If you only read r\bitcoin, you might not hear about lots of these promising new innovations - or you might hear people proclaiming that they're "dead".
But that forum r\bitcoin is not reliable, because it routinely censors any discussion of on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, eg:
The most upvoted thread right now on r\bitcoin (part 4 of 5 on Xthin), is default-sorted to show the most downvoted comments first. This shows that r\bitcoin is anti-democratic, anti-Reddit - and anti-Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mwxn9/the_most_upvoted_thread_right_now_on_rbitcoin/
So, due to the combination of inertia (people tend to be lazy and cautious about upgrading their software, until they absolutely have to) and censorship, some people claim or believe that solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic have "already" been rejected by the community.
But actually, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited are already running seamlessly on the Bitcoin network - and once they reach a certain predefined safe "activation threshold", the network will simply switch over to use them, upgrading from the artificially restrictive Bitcoin Core code:
Be patient about Classic. It's already a "success" - in the sense that it has been tested, released, and deployed, with 1/6 nodes already accepting 2MB+ blocks. Now it can quietly wait in the wings, ready to be called into action on a moment's notice. And it probably will be - in 2016 (or 2017).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44y8ut/be_patient_about_classic_its_already_a_success_in/
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
So what is the actual point of this weekend's meeting between Core/Blockstream and the Chinese Miners?
It's mainly just for show, and ultimately a meaningless distraction - the result of desperation and dishonesty on the part of Core/Blockstream.
As mentioned above, real upgrades to Bitcoin like Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited have already been implemented and tested and are already running on the Bitcoin network - and the overall Bitcoin itself can and probably will switch over to them, regardless of any meaningless "meetings" and delaying tactics.
Is it inevitable for Bitcoin to move to bigger blocks?
Yes, for three reasons:
(1) As mentioned above, studies show that the underlying hardware and bandwidth will already easily support actual blocksizes of 2 MB, and probably 4 MB - and everyone actually agrees on this point, including die-hard supporters of tiny blocks such as Blockstream CTO Gregory Maxwell u/nullc, and r\bitcoin censor moderator u/theymos.
(2) The essential thing about a publicly held company is that it always seeks to maximize shareholder value - and, in a similar fashion, a publicly held cryptocurrency also always seeks to maximize "coinholder" value.
(3) Even if Core/Blockstream continues to refuse to budge, the cat is already out of the bag - they can't put the toothpaste of open-source code back into the tube. Some people might sell their bitcoins for other cryptocurrencies which have better scaling - but a better solution would probably be to wait for a "spinoff" to happen. A "spinoff" is a special kind of "hard fork" where the existing ledger is preserved, so your coins remain spendable on both forks, and you can trade your coins on markets, depending on which fork you prefer.
Further information on "spinoff technology" can be found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Abitco.in%2Fforum+spinoff&ia=web
An excellent discussion of the economic advantages of using a "spinoff" to keep the original ledger (and merely upgrade the ledger-appending software), can be found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678866.0
And today, based on new information learned from Ethereum's recent successful "hardfork split", people are already starting to talk about the specific details involved in implementing a "spinoff" or "hardfork split" for Bitcoin to support bigger blocks - eg, changing the PoW, getting exchanges to support trading on both sides of the fork, upgrading wallets, preventing replay attacks, etc:
We now know the miners aren't going to do anything. We now know that a minority fork can survive. Why are we not forking right now?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vieve/we_now_know_the_miners_arent_going_to_do_anything/
So - whether it's via a hardfork upgrade, or a hardfork split or "spinoff" - it is probably inevitable that Bitcoin will eventually move to bigger blocks (within the underlying hardware and bandwidth constraints of course - which would currently support 2-4 MB blocksizes).
Why are bigger blocks inevitable for Bitcoin?
Because that's how markets always have and always will behave - and there's nothing that Blockstream/Core or AXA can do to stop this - no matter how many pointless stalling scaling meetings they conduct, and no matter how many non-agreements they sign and then break.
Conclusion
Endless centralized meetings and dishonest agreements are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is decentralized markets and open-source code. Users and markets decide on what code to install, and what size blocks to accept. Bitcoin adoption, volume - and price - will continue to grow, with or without the cooperation of the dishonest devs from Core/Blockstream, or misguided miners - or banksters at "fantasy fiat" financial firms like JPMorgan or AXA.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Dev_AMA3 - Brief transcript

Here is the link the video :
Substratum AMA #3 39mins long
You will find here a summary of the answers given by the substratum team, in parenthesis are the timer if you want to listen to the question directly through the video. These are not exactly word by word transcriptions ! Also, note that I am not an English native speaker.
Q1 (1:07): If there is a DDOS attack on the node, what happens to the node ?
Essentially, there can't be. Because it's decentralized, distributed so there can't be a DDOS on a single node because the node serving the request changes each time.
Q2 (2:07): Will it be needed to buy a new and powerful computer to run a node ?
Like any sort of investment, yes. Precise ressources needed will be determined during the beta, this month. But any individual should be able to run a node on his general purpose computer, it won't be like mining bitcoin or other crypto. Bandwidth (upload) will be important too.
They also link us to this video : How Substrate per Request is Calculated
Q3 (4:48): What services or companies will pay to be hosted on the substratum network, and what research has been done on the services that would benefit from accessing an audience in the target countries ?
Anyone that wants to to be sure that they are not going to be blocked will benefit from the SN (Substratum Network). It will provide equal access to the information, even for the people that live in countries where some websites are blacklisted.
Q4 (5:51): Do you plan on contacting big websites and offering them to be hosted on the SN ?
A working network with an organic growth and scaling is what they desire and therefore, as hosts come, they will market to raise awareness. They hope that their working product will attract big websites as time passes.
Q5 (7:15): Why won't governments force the websites to be hosted on centralized servers (in order to ensure censorship) ?
Technically , the government's wont be able to. The only way to shutdown the SN would be to cut-off the Internet, for the moment all countries are connected to the internet but North Korea so the SN could access and be used in all of these regions. Plus, governments won't be able to trace SN packets as they are the same as traditionnal ones.
Q6 (9:02): How much will a node get paid ?
Depending on the time you have been serving the network ( online time), upload bandwith, but also the number of people seeking for hosting and requesting. There is no specific amount for the moment.
There again, you should watch the video linked in Q2.
Q7 (10:50): What if governments first shut down the SN website so that users can't download the app ?
The internet always routes arround.
Q8 (11:45): In regards of CryptoPay, how will substratum be used ?
These are independant products, the SN can run without CryptoPay.
Q9 (12:15): Will businesses have to be hosting their websites on the SN in order to use CryptoPay ?
No.
Q10 (12:35): If CryptoKitties can spam the ETH network, how can you expect Substratum to work properly ?
SN won't run off of Ethereum and does not rely on it to be fast. Ethereum won't be used to process requests, only payouts are served by the Ethereum network.
Q11 (15:34): Could you elaborate on how would the seniority would affect the payouts ?
Basically, it's rewarding loyalty and early adoption. Early node hosters will get bonuses.
Q12 (16:57): Which node payout factor will have the highest weight ?
The upload speed could be the most important.
Q13 (17:40): Why choose SN over a VPN ?
VPNs and the THOR Browser can be targeted where SN can't be identified because is doesn't use any specific packets.
Videos on how it works will come soon.
Q14/Q15 (19:50): If I want to host a node, how do you see that working with my ISP if they suspect me to be hosting ?
They can't tell any difference from any other Internet use. Alos, the information hosted is encrypted and the request are routed to multiple hosts.
Their answer is much longer.
Q16 (25:45): Why is the repo private ?
They are focusing on providing a product to the consumer first, not the developper for now. The repo will be public for any code that runs on the user machine. They will start open-sourcing in the future but in the right way, in order to ensure the growth of their product.
Q17(30:00): What beer is BJ drinking ?
Kombucha, a fermented beer.
Q18 (32:30): Will we be able to witelist the things we want to host ?
They thought about user governance systems and they could be integrating one.
Q19 (34:20): How are you going to deal with the net neutrality situation ?
What they provide will resolve that problem so the net neutrality doesn't matter to them.
Tour of their office
submitted by Tikr_ to SubstratumNetwork [link] [comments]

Transcript of George Webb Video Series Part 83: "Hillary's Leakers, Hackers, and Henchmen" [@Georgwebb / #HRCRatlne]

[Part 81] [Part 82] [[Part 83]] [[Part 84]] [[Part 85]] [[Part 86]] [[Part 87]] [[Part 88]] [[Part 89]] [[Part 90]]
  • Day 254.2. Hillary's Leakers Hackers and Henchmen
    • Okay. Day 254, little bit of a break here at Starbucks
    • I found Johnathan Chamber SCHAEFER again for the famous screenwriter
    • Just talking to him about his girlfriend is his trip to Israel in doing the background for the Art of Leonard
    • And I just wanted to now ask a little bit more about this upcoming movie
    • I always like to find out about upcoming movies
    • I think it's going to be called sirens of Syria
    • Sirens of Syria
    • Kind of a strong undertow member of dizziest with the pull both patriotic pull of country and romantic {{noise}} is going to be kind of a Doctor Zhivago type thing
    • JS: So what did you talk a little bit about planning period this is a story based on a true guy real guy from Syria
    • There are all kinds of refugees from Syria he's a very different kind of refugee
    • He's a guy who is doing very well in the Syrian system and the back of that system started to break I guess it hasn't yet broken the grip of the Syrian tyranny on his mind cracked and he basically became a totally different Huma being
    • So that the transformation he goes through as a result of this civil war
    • G: Now we have a treatment out there in their literary world you write this treatment
    • Kind of details the whole plot, because the producers don't want to actually have to read the script right?
    • JS: haha that's right
    • G: And he's a little bit farther along than that but we're not going to talk about that
    • So now you probably already said Jonathan Schaefer is that S C H A E F E R -- JOHNATHAN SCHAEFER is that the right spelling?
    • JS: that's the correct spelling there was a really shitty beer made in New York State many years ago no relation unfortunately
    • So if you google that name you might find a few appearances on a few soap operas and a few independent films and I think beautiful mind I think you're up for a part with a beautiful mind as the girlfriend of Jennifer Connelly in that, and what happened?
    • JS: I auditioned to Ron Howard and the only I'll say about that is Ron I knew I was going to punishing for Ron Howard I was
    • So excited I watched every movie they are made every interview I could get my hands on and he talked about when he got out of film school he was only 19 years old he went to UCLA, after having been a childhood star, and we said even though ever knew he was only 19 no one would give him money to make a film
    • So he said he thought for a minute about making the year he graduated UCLA film the highest-grossing film was DEEPTHROAT
    • So he thought that I thought for a minute of making a film called "Opie gets laid"
    • So he never made that
    • Never he managed to get funding in other ways he's still willing to make that film
    • All right we're going to have maybe a few more vignettes here from Jonathan as big days to come
    • So we'll see what happens
  • Day 254.3. Hillary's Leakers Hackers and Henchmen
    • Okay. It's Day 253
    • And this is part three and I just thought I'd do a quick breakdown of the video I did before
    • Sorry about the music in the background
    • This is Clinton Foundation
    • As I've said before I've divided this between the hills and the bills and the hills
    • This is the old Clinton Foundation this is the new Bruce Lindsay was a lawyer all the way back to Arkansas then becomes the president of the Clinton Foundation
    • Then of course Eric Braverman later takes that role as the Hillary replacement that Chelsea puts Eric Braverman in
    • Of course poor chef Doug Band who is the key counsel of Bill Clinton during that with his White House days did all the deals basically good-old-boy deals with Bill Clinton
    • This close personal confident of Bill Clinton
    • Laura Graham also could maybe be considered a bill maybe it'd be considered a hill
    • She had a lot of problems trying to negotiate this world between the two
    • Of course she's the person's trying to drive off the Staten Island Ferry to commit suicide because she's
    • So confused and torn about that
    • And of course now we get to the technical level
    • This is Justin Cooper he's the key hacker
    • This is the Chelsea Clinton writes an email about Justin, saying she reads all of Bill Clinton's emails, he's putting spyware on all the Blackberries, "He's spying on us he's spying on us and spying on us"
    • Of course that means that Bryan Pagliano is spying on the Bills
    • So so Justin is spying on the Hills, Brian is spying on the Bills
    • How does that net out in terms of business?
    • Well, Teneo is the group inside a Clinton foundation for the old Bills... of selling influence, and influence peddling
    • The new one for the Hills is the Podesta group: Tony Podesta and all the players they are
    • Joule energy
    • Uranium one Frank Giustra the key companies that are used as not necessarily fronts, but they're involved in the shipping, air, land and sea, for dictators around the world for
    • Oops--out of focus for some...for a second don't know why, sorry about that
    • The key companies involved are decision scientists
    • And of course this morning I expose the Awans at several airlines for sea shipping and land shipping
    • Basically it was Brian Pagliano that's going to be stealing information from the Decision Sciences, from Teneo, pulling it over here for the Awans for the air, land, and sea business
    • With the Bills, it was weapons and uranium
    • The thing that the Hills are going to add is not only weapons depleted uranium weapons, but also this white phosphorus
    • This is going to be why Eric Braverman leaves the Clinton Foundation
    • Because the white phosphorus weapons these disfiguring weapons that eat through skin to the bone
    • So this was the days of hoe and blow and
    • Now we've gone to the days of white phosphorus and organ harvesting
    • You might remember the movie "white mischief"?
    • Well this is white phosphorus
  • Day 255.1. Hillary's Leakers Hackers and Henchmen
    • Okay. This is Day 255 part 1
    • Happy Fourth of July everybody
    • Here on 23rd Street again the site of the Braverman bombing
    • Still the windows are not fixed as you can see behind me
    • Now I'm going to just talk about GID a little bit
    • GID is the Intelligence services of Egypt
    • So I'm going to take what's known as a giddy walk: when you when GID guys go for a walk, it's called a giddy walk
    • So we're going to a giddy walk today
    • I'll be a little giddy because I'm doing GID
    • And I'm just going to say that for the Braverman bombing here for these two guys to be taking these two pressure cookers over four blocks in New York there's a lot of cameras so it's not a conspiracy it's called a camera, okay.?
    • The first camera I'm going to highlight is the picture the camera that took the picture of the guys which is right over there walking down the street with the two bombs.
    • There's another picture of them leaving the hotel with the two pressure cooker bombs
    • But we're just going to walk and I'm gonna talk about a whole bunch of different a whole bunch of different items today
    • But I want you to think about how many cameras in that hat you're passing as I do the walk
    • Now as they go by you're going to see the NYPD published a picture of the two guys the two Egyptian pilots and then later they were security forces that came in
    • So just imagine the amount of trouble to fly those two guys into New York, get the two pressure cooker bombs at the hotel or wherever they picked them up, roll them down here to 23rd Street, and roll them up 27th Avenue--23rd to 7th...27th Street and then over to where they end up ended up, dropping the second bomb, which didn't go off, okay?
    • So here's what I'm saying if that was depleted uranium--if they knew the Awan Brothers and the bomb that went off right here was depleted uranium, this whole neighborhood would have been affected
    • That's why this isn't just the game.
    • This is a very serious national threat very serious actual threat
    • There goes our first responders they also have body cameras, and would like to see those for Seth Rich by the way
    • Now that there's first responders that have come forward and that Seth Rich case
    • So we're going to talk about brainy blonde in little it talked about the calls of the help desk for the Seth Rich who drove the NPV Van, all that stuff
    • But let's just take the walk now and I'm going to walk here
    • Boom no depleted-uranium and this one right
    • So thank God but NYPD publishes a picture of the two guys right here right here as you pass this little parking meter, that's where their picture is first published and APB is put out
    • Now why would you shut that down?
    • Now later they identified the two guys
    • Remember, as I walk along here, every business has the camera
    • Also look up here on both sides its cameras all over the place,okay
    • So we're still walking along
    • Now as I walk in and you just start realizing the amount of cameras that would have to be along here
    • This is not a conspiracy. This is called camera. Okay.
    • These guys had to walk all along here
    • Now the question you have to ask yourself is: "why would the FBI let these guys go?"
    • You have their picture, you have an all-points bulletin of the GIDs on the giddy walk, you got your GIDs, your pilots, your Egyptian pilots on the giddy walk, why would you let them out of the country?
    • Now they identified them to the American public after they left the country
    • Why would you do that?
    • Why wouldn't you hold them for a couple of days anyway, and say, "hey what's going on here?" --totally understand the crime
    • The guy in New Jersey they ended up arresting was never photographed here
    • He was never photographed on 27th Street he was never photographed anywhere along the walk I'm taking
    • If you just look around when you cross the corner like 23rd Street and 7th Avenue they're cameras everywhere
    • You've never been on camera so much in your life than right here
    • There's the Bronx station and it's just it's almost
    • So let's switch quickly I'll talk about a couple other topics as we take this walk
    • You also have a situation with an Awan dying or getting murdered on Pennsylvania Avenue
    • And he's going to be connected with that DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs DC DCRA--we talked about it yesterday
    • He's going to be murdered not far from Pennsylvania Avenue in 2008
    • So I'm not going to talk about that today but tonight on the show, I will talk about it more
    • I've just made it up one block here the 24th Street
    • And you can already see on both sides how many cameras you would have to pass
    • I'm not even up to the whole foods and Jason Goodman's home here on 25th Street Okay.
    • ( We've never ever withheld where Jason Goodman lived yet some people are saying he lives in Tarzana California. Somebody else published the fact that he lives here. Great that's what we've said all along )
    • So I'm not going to walk the whole distance, but you can see that I've only walked one street out of the four
    • Plus I have to go in on 27 back east on 27th Street there's cameras literally everywhere
    • Why wouldn't the FBI publish this in profusion?
    • But you have to ask yourself, "do you trust the FBI?"
    • "Do you trust Andrew McCabe who shut down the Hillary investigation?"
    • Who shut down the Huma investigation
    • Who shut down the Awan brothers investigation?
    • Who shut down to the Monica Peterson investigation
    • And where are we? Who are we investigating?
    • Me!
    • *I'm the only guy who's in a fight over DU with the FBI
    • And I've never touched DU in my life
    • I've never owned a shipping container
    • I've never shipped anything into the United States
    • I've never shit owned a shipping company in the United States
    • I've never owned a shipping company in Pakistan
    • I've never held a diplomatic passport
    • I've never been a member of a royal family
    • I've never taken any training Intelligence training
    • I've I've never committed any crimes on Congress....any burglaries
    • I've never threatened anybody with kidnapping
    • Yet I and the only guy--I'm the only guy who's got a trial related to depleted uranium in the United States right now
    • And I'm still the only person to have a trial involved with Clinton Foundation
  • Day 255.2 Hillary's Leakers Hackers and Henchmen
    • Okay. It's day 255 part 2
    • What did Braverman tell us to do? What did Braverman say?
    • Follow the money
    • Why hasn't anybody in this investigation been following the money?
    • We're following body camera footage that doesn't exist--the following first responder cameras that don't exist
    • {{ Partymode-activated scrunchie photobombs George }}
    • << Haaay Scrunchie.....I wanna party wit-chu >>
    • So anyway why not follow the money?
    • Amalgamated Bank well why am I in front of Amalgamated Bank?
    • Well because they could have saved a lot of letters if they just said SEIU Bank, right
    • This is the bank of the Clinton Foundation
    • Why wouldn't you follow the money if you were a New York FBI doing a field investigation
    • Why wouldn't you follow the money?
    • Well who was the CFO that was the CFO of SEIU?
    • Keith Mestrich just think of an ostrich but take the OS off and put an mes
    • Keith Mestrich was the CFO of SEIU and it's the president of Amalgamated Bank
    • This is like one simple google search if you were FBI in New York field office FBI
    • And Eric Braverman came to you, and said, "hey follow the money"
    • You'd go, "hey Eric, just wait here a second in the lobby over here at FBI field office. We'll google Amalgamated Bank. Oh Keith Mestrich he was also CFO of SEIU."
    • You would also probably say, "well who is the CFO over at DNC?"
    • You could just do this
    • Well you remember when you're a little kid in art class, and they had you cut a strip of paper, and then you turned it and glued it a half turn, and then you put a pen on it, you did a crayon all around it found it with continuous
    • Aand kept on going forever remember
    • That strip remember what that strip was called?
    • That was the mobius strip
    • Well just put a tee instead of the M--that's Tobias
    • Because the money just circulates back to the Clinton Foundation no matter if it's supposed to go out to the states, the Tobias strip brings it right back into Amalgamated Bank.
    • If the states all give money to the DNC, and then the Amalgamated bank's supposed to take it back out, it's a rubber band: it comes straight back into Amalgamated Bank
    • Andy. Andy Tobias. Then the DNC very good friends of the Clintons then the treasurer of the DNC since 99 check it out 1999
    • So wouldn't you---if your field FBI and Eric Braverman walked into your office, when you start right here at Amalgamated Bank, if you were following the money the Clinton Foundation
    • This is the Clinton Foundation's Bank okay
    • So let's walk down the street a little bit I'm going to go to Cohens
    • Now who's Dave Cohen?
    • Well he ran the New York Police Department's intel unit for about 12 years
    • I think Mr. Cohen has pretty good eyes
    • I respect Mr. Cohen I indirectly work for him
    • Pretty damn smart guy, through you Rudy Giuliani's organization
    • Pretty damn smart guy look up Dave Cohen
    • You don't think he'd be smart enough to go and get Justin Cooper
    • Go and get somebody who was disaffected within the Clinton Foundation
    • You don't think he'd be smart enough to do that and say, "hey I need to get you I need an inside guy, who's getting the emails brought up here in the NGP vans at the Clinton Foundation"
    • Somebody who could hack into the Clinton Foundation
    • Get those emails of those seven financial people don't you think the FBI and NYPD Intel are smart enough to follow the money
    • The seven people involved in the money at the Clinton Foundation the NYPD is not going to run around after the body cams that don't exist
    • Oh by the way this is right on the track right
    • There's variety down there this is right on the track of the giddy guys the GID guys the Egyptian bombers
    • They take your right body the bank
    • It could be easier I can't believe all these things are linked together
    • Literally they walked up here with a second bomb, the second pressure cooker, the roller, the two Egyptian pilots, and they walk you right by Amalgamated Bank
    • So it's Keith Mestrich CEO was the CFO at at SEIU
    • Podesta, Andy Stern, all the SEIU beetles. Hey the SEIU beetles get to have a bank too, right?
    • So now I won't walk over to the--well, why not? Let's walk over to the DNC phones
    • Let's do a hack or let's do a leak one of the -- let's do one of the two
    • So we're going to do is we're going to be the FBI
    • I'm going to be I'm going to play Adrian Hawkins
    • And I'm going to call Yarid Tameen at the help desk, and I'm going to say, "hey you've been hacked" on one of the phones
    • And the other phone is going to be the DCCC, and that's going to be connected by a VPN on Ivy Street there in Washington DC
    • So these two phones one's going to be the DNC and the other is going to be the DCCC
    • So here we go going to do a little role play here
    • Remember: I'm Adrian Hawkins with the FBI. Right?
    • So I'm going to ring I'm going to ring here
    • Bring Bring,
    • G-ADRIAN "hey hey DNC. I'm Adrian Hawkins.
    • G-TAMEEN: "Hello YARID TAMEEN what's what's the trouble?"
    • G-ADRIAN: "Are you are you the helpdesk?
    • G-TAMEEN: "Yeah I'm helpdesk."
    • G-ADRIAN: "Well you've been hacked. What day is it? It's September 2015. You've been hacked
    • G-TAMEEN: "Oh you're so funny scrunchie, I'm going to ignore you"
    • So October
    • G-ADRIAN: "Hey you've been hacked again"
    • G-TAMEEN: "Oh scrunchie you so funny I don't believe you oh-kaaay"
    • So this goes on for a couple months until November
    • Until finally, they have a meeting, and they come up with the Uretsky thing, and of course they blame the whistleblower again
    • And then three more calls the helpdesk until April, till Bernie drops the lawsuit
    • Bernie drops a lawsuit on April 29th, the same day we have an email come out about Amy Dacey saying, "oh we got hacked"
    • So it's eight months later at the night of the White House Correspondents Dinner Amy Dacey admits they got hacked
    • So we're going to leave it right there that's a lot of information
    • But do you believe this story, with--look up Adrian Hawkins calling help desk.
    • Hey scrunchie we don't believe you
    • YARID Y A R I D Tameen T A M E E N
    • He's the guy on the help desk MIS is the company name in Chicago, taking the calls from the FBI
    • The six calls and the two meetings but now it's the most important thing on the national agenda
    • Before it was six calls to the help desk and two meetings
    • But now it's the most important thing in our democracy that we get to the bottom of
    • This hack
    • Or leak
  • Day 256.1. Hillary's Leakers Hackers and Henchmen
    • Okay. Day 256 part one
    • Is last day here
    • But my eighth-grade teacher told me she said comparison and contrast is a key assay
    • You have to learn how to compare and contrast
    • So I just wanted to compare the Egyptian pilots security guys GID whatever you want to call them, with my situation, in my case
    • Remember, all I did was I got called by the Coast Guard three times. Three times. And I told them the same thing every time
    • Check the for diplomatic containers if with standard practices if they say Awan brothers Awan brothers transport
    • I think is what I said or Awan/ Brothers Inc the two
    • I can't remember if I said a third Awan brothers transit I think maybe
    • But I said if it has one of those a1 names check through diplomatic containers standard scan ok
    • Now contrast this with the two guys or start walking it
    • There's these two Egyptian guys security services
    • We don't know if they had diplomatic passports
    • But we know they dropped off a bomb
    • We know the bomb went off and if it would have had red bag waste radioactive waste, it would have been a dirty bomb
    • If it would have had depleted uranium it would have been a dirty bomb
    • Bill de Blasio the mayor of New York called the nightmare scenario
    • About that incident that night.
    • Pictures taken right here the parking thing
    • The other reason I walk the route a lot is there's got to be it was 8:30 at night there's got to be a lot of people that were out here this is the workday
    • Now this morning that's me a lot of people that remember that night 8:30 Saturday night Chelsea fun night people walking around having fun going to dinner
    • They would remember two Egyptian guys rolling that tiger bag
    • So we focused on the tiger bag
    • That's what we were focused on the pressure cookers inside of it give people an idea of the shape right
    • So that's that's what we're doing there
    • So let's shift off that
    • Move over to the news that came out with WikiLeaks this morning WikiLeaks had a tweet that said the CIA tried to influence 1,800 different narratives of different works in books okay
    • Now most Americans don't realize that the CIA is involved and that type of activity right
    • So what they do is they're very subtle it's extremely subtle its covert but it's real and that's the important thing to remember
    • {{ 911: Francis Stonor Saunders: "Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters" // "Who paid the Piper?: CIA and the Cultural Cold War"
    • If the CIA can pay for 1,800 if you could read the WikiLeaks this morning to influence 1,800 books, it's always through a friend of a friend through a well-known literary agent calls and asks two or three of a friend
    • But it's always people that you're impressed by ... they're CEOs always that are trying to influence you
    • And you're they say well you should you should do a book about this guy who's an art collector
    • Let's call it the Art of being Leonard or you should do a book about this super-rich Syrian guy that owns these hospitals
    • Let's call it sirens of Syria or whatever
    • Now I'm not saying that's what happened with Jonathan Schafer
    • But I'm the reason why I kind of brought Jonathan into the picture, and I'll be right here to see if easier this morning in few minutes reason why I brought him into the picture was to just show how the people that are actually writing the screenplays, that are the screenwriters, don't actually know that they're potentially a part or being co-opted into a narrative and
    • So my point is in the same way the CIA uses influence and uses your inputs if they can control your inputs what goes in your eyes and your ears they control your outputs and your actions right?
    • Larry Larry Nichols said in all soft coups you control the media
    • You don't control the military, you control the media
    • So in the same way to counter that Counterintelligence is to preempt
    • I think I said this last night
    • YOu have to preempt that message with truth
    • And it can't be truth like, "oh here's my press release that I tagged from Associated Press versus their press release," because they're always going to win that validation game
    • What you have to do get the phone in your hand go to the location actually do the reporting
    • That trumps these press releases that the guy is a reporter for the Hoboken Gazette
    • He goes out, and he gets validated by AP
    • Now everyone starts quoting the AP story--the CIA's been doing this for years
    • The only difference is the CNN took the role of AP
    • So for the BuzzFeed peepee dossier, immediately two minutes after the PP dossier was out, you had CNN's say, "hey look at this," and then was ten different people commenting on that
    • So it'll turn not all the bad guys are guys
    • So we're going to turn to somebody who is the treasurer for the Clinton Foundation victory fund
    • The victory fund she's going to be involved with TENEO and she's going to be involved with a CGI, which is the Clinton Global Initiative
    • Which is if if unit eight in France wants to take money out of every ticket, when you fly to France, to fight AIDS in Africa
    • They don't need the Clinton Global Initiative to broker anything
    • They don't need CGI.
    • They just need to give it to the people who need it in Africa
    • There's plenty of NGOs that can be worked with
    • That was the whole idea of the Clinton Global Initiative--they inserted themselves in all of these donation deals
    • And they ended up keeping about thirty percent of the money
    • This bank--if somebody came forward and said, "well not really SEIU--they're really acting as a front. They're really acting as a front for the Saudis, theyre really acting as a front for the Saudis so it's not so bad.
    • Well and there's this guy I can't remember his name...Sheikh Masood...back in BCCI days--this goes back 30 years
    • "Oh they're just really acting as a front for the Saudis, so it's not as bad"
    • I think that's worse
    • I think that's worse that that a Union Bank--SEIU Bank, Amalgamated Bank--would act as a proxy for the Saudis
    • Not a good situation
    • You're going to have a lot of George Soros money today
    • Democracy Alliance: again another appendage of Amalgamated Bank
    • They're going to have them doing all kinds of Antifada or whatever--antifa
    • Today in New York protesting the presidency of Donald Trump--what's to protest? What has he done?
    • We nominated a billion dollar cabinet
    • So there's really not much to protest
    • They got everything they wanted
    • I mean Wilbur Ross was the one who bailed out our current deputy--our current Department of Commerce director Wilbur Ross bailed out Amalgamated Bank
    • Alright we're going to talk to Jonathan
    • We're going to try to get Jonathan to write the true story about Syria
    • And that's why I've been talking to Jonathan I'm going to actually use this as a use case, about how you can use truth to overcome CIA influence
  • Day 256.2. Hillary's Leakers Hackers and Henchmen
    • Okay. We've got de 256 part 2
    • And here we are back at the DNC phone booth
    • Of course we have our DCCC phone booth and they're connected together by a VPN in the same building on Ivy Street
    • So let's recreate the hack again, September 2015, I'm Adrian Hawkins
    • ADRIAN: hey you read a help desk over at GNC you're being hacked
    • TAMEEN: Hey scrunchie! How you doin' FBI. Let's say well let's say I ignore you for three months in a row. You make the same you've been hacked call three months in a row?
    • Click
    • But somewhere in there Adrian Hawkins tells Yarid Tameen you have one computer one you have one computer calling home
    • Like maybe Seth Rich's computer. Seth Rich's laptop calling home to 1222 Euclid Avenue, 1222 Euclid Avenue
    • Not first Avenue, because on my helping the NSA here do the trace, because the actual phoning home is actually going to happen every day every day
    • Every day the backup software that Seth installs on his laptop is going to be phoning home a certain time of day
    • Because see that Clinton's love to be able to say oops I did it again
    • Oops it was automated backup software that I didn't realize when I took I didn't realize when I took my laptop home, it automatically synced
    • Where have we heard this before?
    • We've heard this before with Huma with her blackberry
    • She didn't realize it was syncing with Anthony Weiner's laptop the 650 thousand emails
    • The Anthony's trusted staff the Awan brothers--they didn't realize when they sent these secure phones out to different senators and Congressmen with the laptops in their offices
    • They didn't realize that the syncing was happening the desktop syncing
    • Thank you very much James Comey and Andrew McCabe for proving me right on that blackberry syncing
    • Now we've got to know if Seth Rich had a blackberry--that would that would be very interesting
    • We don't even need that
    • YARID TAMEEN got the call from Adrian Hawkins, "hey you've got one one computer phoning phoning that's home home phoning home"
    • Like it wasn't to Russia, it wasn't to Colorado... it was to Washington DC...
    • You basically you have one worker who has their system configured, who has administrative rights to the NGP van software, phoning home on a daily basis
    • On a daily syncing it could even be more frequent than that
    • So I might have blown it in saying there were monthly moves to the NGP van software
    • It could be moot, it could have daily syncs, and he was sinking the whole NGP database to his laptop
    • That may be why--even though Seth Rich is not a Federal employee,
    • Even though he was killed in a simple robbery, we are told
    • That may be why they invaded his house at 1222 Euclid Avenue,
    • And that's why they seized his laptop
    • And that's why they seized his phone
    • And that's why those items are in Clarksburg West Virginia right now, in the FBI vault
    • And people say, "Oh Seth wasn't that technical"
    • He could always have his help from his brother, who's got top-secret clearance, he's an incredible programmer a hacker, who hacks for who else but Northrop Grumman, which is right across the street in Alexandria Virginia, from who?
    • CrowdStrike!
    • And Demetri Alperovitz
  • Day 256.3. Hillary's Leakers Hackers and Henchmen
    • Okay. It's Day 254 This is part 3
    • I'm here at beautiful Greely square
    • The reason why I was making fun of Yareed Tamin and FBI with Mr. Hawkins, Adrian Hawkins, because it's a school play.
    • And it throws you off from the real facts
    • The real facts and way to follow the case is do what Braverman said, "follow the money."
    • Follow the money you get it every time
    • Braverman leaves at the end of 2014-2015 is when the DNC email started
    • The seven people that are listed in the emails, are all financial people
    • The reason why is Braverman is pointing field FBI here in New York toward financial people
    • The people who internet analyzed original emails of the DNC are looking for transfers of information that support or take away from money transfers, from the DNC, to here in New York
    • The way it's done is I've explained through Amalgamated Bank
    • The account is going to be called a victory for Hillary fund
    • The person managing that is going to be Beth Jones
    • The person managing the DNC on the other end is going to be Andrew Tobias
    • That's who the two players are that are moving the money from the DNC to the victory for Hillary Fund in Brooklyn
    • Just that simple
    • The way it all starts is Braverman initially originally goes to the press in May
    • That's going to be the articles right after the New York Times story breaks about the private server
    • That's when the whole goose one story comes up goose is going to be a story it's going to be a diversion
    • Goose is not a hack
    • Goodse is an internal leak
    • Someone internal to the Clinton Foundation leaks the server
    • That's going to be Justin Cooper
    • The reason why is because Andrew Pagliano built that server
    • OFFSCREEN PERSON: Bryan
    • G: Bryan Pagliano sorry built that server
    • That's when they're first tipped off to Clinton email server
    • Goose didn't discover Clinton email and Clinton email server
    • Braverman then goes to the FBI field FBI here in New York in June of 2015
    • Now you're going to see all those articles come out about IRA Magaziner
    • Why?
    • Because IRA is taking that unit UNITAID money, money for a Africa
    • And he's taking half of it, the Clinton Global Initiative is taking a 50% cut, that's not getting to Africa
    • And on top of it, IRA Magaziner is bringing in generic drug makers that are quarter-weighting and half-weighting the drugs that are coming into Africa
    • That's why Braverman ghosts the FBI in New York, the FBI has their own agenda though in their investigation,
    • And they implant someone here--they have a informant here in Brooklyn, and uptown here, we're going to go in a minute
submitted by 911bodysnatchers322 to TruthLeaks [link] [comments]

Progress On Hardfork Proposals Following The Segwit Blocksize Increase | Peter Todd | Aug 05 2016

Peter Todd on Aug 05 2016:
Repost by request from my blog, apologies for the somewhat screwy formatting!
layout: post
title: "Progress On Hardfork Proposals Following The Segwit Blocksize Increase"
date: 2016-08-05
tags:
With segwit getting close to its initial testnet release in Bitcoin Core
v0.13.0 - expected to be followed soon by a mainnet release in Bitcoin Core
v0.13.1 - I thought it'd be a good idea to go over work being done on a
potential hard-fork to follow it, should the Bitcoin community decide to accept
the segwit proposal.
First of all, to recap, in addition to many other improvements such as fixing
transaction malleability, fixing the large transaction signature verification
DoS attack, providing a better way to upgrade the scripting system in the
future, etc. segwit increases the maximum blocksize to 4MB. However, because
it's a soft-fork - a backwards compatible change to the protocol - only witness
(signature) data can take advantage of this blocksize increase; non-witness
data is still limited to 1MB total per block. With current transaction patterns
it's expected that blocks post-segwit won't use all 4MB of serialized data
allowed by the post-segwit maximum blocksize limit.
Secondly, there's two potential upgrades to the Bitcoin protocol that will
further reduce the amount of witness data most transactions need: [Schnorr
signatures](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-power-of-schnorr-the-signature-algorithm-to-increase-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496) and BLS aggregate signatures.
Basically, both these improvements allow multiple signatures to be combined,
the former on a per-transaction level, and the latter on a per-block level.
Last February
some of the mining community and some of the developer community got together to discuss potential
hard-forks, with the aim of coming up with a reasonable proposal to take to the
wider community for further discussion and consensus building. Let's look at
where that effort has lead.

Ethereum: Lessons to be learned

But first, Ethereum. Or as some have quipped, the Etherea:
The Battle for Etherea. https://t.co/2ATQRQRXnH">https://t.co/2ATQRQRXnH— Samson Mow (@Excellion) https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/759677608753627136">July 31, 2016
If you've been following the crypto-currency space at all recently, you
probably know that the Ethereum community has split in two following a very
controversial hard-fork to the Ethereum protocol, To make a long story short, a
unintended feature in a smart-contract called "The DAO" was exploited by a
as-yet-unknown individual to drain around $50 million worth of the Ethereum
currency from the contract. While "white-hat attackers" did manage to recover a
majority of the funds in the DAO, a hard-fork was proposed to rewrite the
Ethereum ledger to recover all funds - an action that many, including myself,
have described as a bailout.
The result has been a big mess. This isn't the place to talk about all the
drama that's followed in depth, but I think it's fair to say that the Ethereum
community found out the hard way that just because you give a new protocol the
same name as an existing protocol, that doesn't force everyone to use it. As of
writing, what a month ago was called "Ethereum" - Ethereum Classic - has 20% of
the hashing power as the bailout chain, and peaked only two or three days ago
at around 30%. As for market cap, while the combined total for the two chains
is similar to the one chain pre-fork, this is likely misleading: there's
probably a lot of coins on both chains that aren't actually accessible and
don't represent liquid assets on the market. Instead, there's a good chance a
significant amount of value has been lost.
In particular, both chains have suffered significantly from transaction replay
issues. Basically, due to the way the Ethereum protocol is designed - in
particular the fact that Ethereum isn't based on a UTXO model - when the
Ethereum chain split transactions on one chain were very often valid on another
chain. Both attacks and accidents can lead to transactions from one chain
ending up broadcast to others, leading to unintentional spends. This wasn't an
unexpected problem:
.https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc">@petertoddbtc we knew it would happen weeks before launch, we didn't want to implement replay-protection b.c. of implementation complexity— Vlad Zamfir (@VladZamfir) https://twitter.com/VladZamfistatus/759552287157133313">July 31, 2016
...and it's lead to costly losses. Among others Coinbase has lost [an unknown amount of
funds](https://twitter.com/eiaine/status/758560296017416194) that they may have to buy back. Even worse, BTC-e lost pretty much their entire balance
of original Ethereum coins - apparently becoming insolvent - and instead of
returning customer funds, they decided to declare the original Ethereum chain a scam instead.
A particularly scary thing about this kind of problem is that it can lead to
artificial demand for a chain that would otherwise die: for all we know
Coinbase has been scrambling behind the scenes to buy replacement ether to make
up for the ether that it lost due to replay issues.
More generally, the fact that the community split shows the difficulty - and
unpredictability - of achieving consensus, maintaining consensus, and
measuring consensus. For instance, while the Ethereum community did do a coin
vote as I suggested, turnout was extremely
low - around 5% - with a significant minority in opposition (and note that
exchanges' coins were blacklisted from the vote due to technical reasons).
Additionally, the miner vote also had low turnout, and again, significant
minority opposition.
With regard to drama resulting
from a coin split, something I think not many in the technical community had
considered, is that exchanges can have perverse incentives to encourage it. The
split resulted in significant trading volume on the pre-fork, status quo,
Ethereum chain, which of course is very profitable for exchanges. The second
exchange to list the status-quo chain was Poloniex, who have over 100
Bitcoin-denominated markets for a very wide variety of niche currencies - their
business is normally niche currencies that don't necessarily have wide appeal.
Finally, keep in mind that while this has been bad for Ethereum, it'd be even
worse for Bitcoin: unlike Ethereum, Bitcoin actually has non-trivial usage in
commerce, by users who aren't necessarily keeping up to date with the latest
dramaHHHHH news. We need to proceed carefully with any
non-backwards-compatible changes if we're to keep those users informed, and
protect them from sending and receiving coins on chains that they didn't mean
too.

Splitting Safely

So how can we split safely? Luke Dashjr has written both a
BIP, and
preliminary code
to do a combination of a hard-fork, and a soft-fork.
This isn't a new idea, in fact Luke posted it
to the bitcoin-dev mailing list last February, and it's been known as an option
for years prior; I personally mentioned it on this blog last January.
The idea is basically that we do a hard-fork - an incompatible rule change - by
"wrapping" it in a soft-fork so that all nodes are forced to choose one chain
or the other. The new soft-forked rule-set is simple: no transactions are
allowed at all. Assuming that a majority of hashing power chooses to adopt the
fork, nodes that haven't made a decision are essentially 51% attacked and will
follow an empty chain, unable to make any transactions at all.
For those who choose not to adopt the hard-fork, they need to themselves do a
hard-fork to continue transacting. This can be as simple as blacklisting the
block where the two sides diverged, or something more complex like a
proof-of-work change.
On the plus side, Luke's proposal maximizes safety in many respects: so long as
a majority of hashing power adopts the fork no-one will accidentally accept
funds from a chain that they didn't intend too.

Giving Everyone A Voice

It's notable that what Luke calls a "soft-hardfork" has also been called a
"forced soft-fork" by myself, as well as an "evil fork" by many others - what
name you give it is a matter of perspective. From a technical point of view,
the idea is a 51% attack against those who choose not to support the new
protocol; it's notable that when I pointed this out to some miners they were
very concerned about the precedent this could set if done badly.
Interestingly, due to implementation details Ethereum hard-fork was similar to
Luke's suggestion: pre-fork Ethereum clients would generally fail to start due
to an implementation flaw - in most cases - so everyone was forced to get new
software. Yet, Ethereum still split into two economically distinct coins.
This shows that attempting to k...[message truncated here by reddit bot]...
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-August/012936.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

[Table] IAmA: I am Julian Assange, publisher of Wikileaks. Ask me anything.

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2014-06-19
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Questions Answers
By your estimation, which modern government has the most transparency? For a small government, Iceland. But it is hard to compare small governments with large ones. In small societies the path length between individuals is also small, so it is easier to know what is going on in government. Transparency is enforced by proximity and cultural norms as well as bureaucratic standards. See Link to immi.is
— Newer democracies were in general more responsive than some developed ones. Guatemala confirmed the AP request in 72 hours, and sent all documents in 10 days. Turkey sent spreadsheets and data within seven days. Mexico posted responses on the Web. By comparison, Canada asked for a 200-day extension. The FBI in the United States responded six months late with a single sheet with four dates, two words and a large section blanked. Austria never responded at all. — More than half the countries did not release anything, and three out of 10 did not even acknowledge the request. African governments led the world for ignoring requests, with no response whatsoever from 11 out of 15 countries. — Dozens of countries adopted their laws at least in part because of financial incentives, and so are more likely to ignore them or limit their impact. China changed its access-to-information rules as a condition to joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, to boost the economy by as much as 10 percent. Beijing has since expanded the rules beyond trade matters. Pakistan adopted its 2002 ordinance in return for $1.4 billion in aid from the International Monetary Fund. Neither country responded to the AP's test. "Having a law that's not being obeyed is almost worse than not having a law at all," says Daniel Metcalf, the leading U.S. Freedom of Information authority at the Justice Department for the past 25 years, now a law professor at American University. "The entire credibility of a government is at stake."
Link to www.apnewsarchive.com
, what do you do to stop yourself going mental with boredom? From my understanding, you cannot leave the embassy or you'll be arrested, so you've basically placed yourself under house arrest. What are you day to day activities? 1) I only wish there was a risk of boredom in my present situation. Besides being the centre of a pitched, prolonged diplomatic standoff, along with a police encirclement of the building I am in and the attendant surveillance and government investigations against myself and my staff, I am in one of the most populous cities in Europe, and everyone knows my exact location. People visit me nearly every day. I also continue to direct a small multinational organisation, WikiLeaks, which is a serious logistical and occupational endeavour. I barely have time to sleep, let alone become bored.
, (and I don't mean this to sound inflammatory), why did you start a website to leak classified information? Surely you can understand that many things kept confidential are for the reasons of national security, and releasing secret documents puts lives and international relations at risk? 2) Confidential government documents we have published disclose evidence of war crimes, criminal back-room dealings and sundry abuses. That alone legitimates our publications, and that principally motivates our work. Secrecy was never intended to enable criminality in the highest offices of state. Secrecy is, yes, sometimes necessary, but healthy democracies understand that secrecy is the exception, not the rule. "National security" pretexts for secrecy are routinely used by powerful officials, but seldom justified. If we accept these terms of propaganda, strong national security journalism becomes impossible. Our publications have never jeopardized the "national security" of any nation. When secrecy is a cover-all for endemic official criminality, I suggest to you, it bespeaks a strange set of priorities to ask journalists to justify their own existence.
What is your opinion on Edward Snowden? Edward Snowden performed an intelligent and heroic act. I and others had been calling for exactly this act for years (you can read about that here: Link to reason.com) I am a trustee for his legal defense and co-ordinated his asylum. Our Sarah Harrison kept him secure in his path out of Hong Kong and spent 40 days making sure he was OK in Moscow's airport. Just last week I co-launched a new international organisation, the Courage Foundation in Berlin. Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire and many other great people are involved. Please support it and Mr. Snowden's asylum renewal campaign. See Link to couragefound.org. Snowden's most recent comments on WikiLeaks are here: Link to t.co
What advice would you give to ordinary citizens in regards to how they can have an impact? We are screaming for change, but what steps can we take? What can ordinary people do? Support and promote projects that are acting at scale. WikiLeaks is my realisation of this tension, but there are a flood of others starting. The clash between diversity and global uniformity which has been created by wiring the world to itself is now in play. You are the troops.
Many of us feel helpless, overwhelmed and small. When we are aware of the world and the scale of its inhumanity and stupidity we feel small. It very hard to "think globally" and "act locally", because by thinking globally we become overwhelmed with the scale of the problems to be solved. However the Internet permits many people to act globally in a way they couldn't before. WikiLeaks is a realisation of this tension. By releasing materials on many parts of the world, we empower others to think and act.
What are your views on Narendra Modi, India's new Right-leaning Prime Minister? The election of Modi is a very interesting development in Indian democracy. We have released many interesting documents on Modi's ascension to power, you can see them here: (just search for 'Modi') Link to wikileaks.org and Link to search.wikileaks.org From these materials it's clear Modi can be most accurately described as a "business authoritarian". Whether Indian needs a stronger centre to compete with China is an open question. Inevitably strong leaders make mistakes and eventually lose their faculties. Other than his extensive big business alliances, I think it is an open question as to whether Modi will bring more good than bad to India.
Lebanon is one of the most politically corrupt nations in the world. For its size, it has a massive and complicated web of economic, political, military influence coming from neighboring countries which, many will argue, polarizes the already divided demographic. I love Lebanon and have many friends there, but your description as to why Lebanon is the way it is, is exactly right. It also makes Lebanon, for its size, the most politically interesting country on earth, because if you understand Lebanon you understand the powerflows across the region. Some of that is documented here: Link to wikileaks.org
What is your take on how Lebanon continues to somehow function and what direction might we expect it to take politically, socially, and economically, as the current state of affairs persist? As for the future of Lebanon, I would not presume to understand more than Lebanese do. But pulling back from the dynamics of the moment, I believe the hope for Lebanon is in the web of business, social and political alliances created by the Lebanese diaspora. While the diaspora is often rightfully seen within Lebanon as a corrupting influence, it is also external support for the continued existence of the country in the same way that the jewish diaspora is for Israel.
If you had a chance to do this all again, would you, and what changes would you make? Again - definitely; we only live once and every day spent living your principles is a day at liberty. It is clear that history is on our side. Most of our difficult decisions are constrained by resource limits, not ideas. But I was ignorant about the extent of Sweden's geopolitical reliance on the United States and to some extent the structure of UK society. You can read about that here: Link to wikileaks.org
You are implying that Sweden's extradition request for you was at the behest of the U.S. Given the U.S. and UK "special relationship" why do you think the U.S. would not make a direct extradition request to London? It may well do so. See Link to justice4assange.com
What would you say was the most important piece of information you have leaked? Our ongoing PLUSD series, which contains more than two million cables, has had by far the most impact and continues to be used in court cases and elections every week. You can search it here: Link to wikileaks.org
Closest to my heart, perhaps unsurprisingly, is Collateral Murder Link to collateralmurder.org and the military histories of nearly every death and incident in Iraq + Afghanistan Link to wardiary.wikileaks.org
Elections I understand, but how are wikileaks documents admissible in a US court of law? There are many precedents now to say they are admissible. See Link to www.brickcourt.co.uk
In regards to President Obama you were recently quoted as saying, “You must surely, now, start to reflect on what your legacy will be." How do you think history will remember you, and how do you feel about that? For presidents it is important, but for the rest of us it is more important to get things done and see your legacy in the world. We're doing well in the more academic or comprehensive histories and outside the worst aspects of the English speaking mainstream press. Smears don't have much staying power on their own because they deviate from the foundations of reality (what actually happened). They require constant energy from our opponents to keep going. The truth has a habit of reasserting itself.
Hi Julian! I'm a former SNL writer who penned some jokes that parodied your predicament -- including one you've re-tweeted as a meme. Now, you're probably going to have a large number of serious questions. I'm here to ask: What are your favorite pieces of fiction? And if you got a day out to have a good time, where would you go and what would you do? We all got a chuckle from that. Less so when Amnesty (which is part funded by the UK government) did this: Link to www.youtube.com but still refuses to call Chelsea Manning (or me) a political prisoner. See also Link to roqayah.co
Favourite fiction: Cancer Ward.
What are your thoughts on cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin? Here is a conversation from 2011 where I tell Google's chairman, Eric Schmidt about Bitcoin. Fortunately he didn't listen, or else he'd own the planet by now. Link to wikileaks.org
What is the information you hesitated most about revealing due to safety issues for people involved? What made you decide revealing it anyway? The Penny report. The UK argued to us that it was a "serious nuclear proliferation risk", but on further research, they were full of hot air.
Link to wikileaks.org)
Like Edward Snowden, do you feel the media made an effort to focus on you rather than what you were doing? How would the choice to remain anonymous have impacted Wikileaks? It is hard to stay anonymous and run a big ship. In a conflict at this level, once your opponent knows who you are, then you need the protection of a public profile. This consideration fed into both my and Edward Snowden's decision making.
What are your thoughts on the sexual assault allegations brought against you? See Link to wikileaks.org
Is there any one piece of information that you truly regret leaking? No. We make a promise to our sources. We keep it.
Two questions. Gottfrid Svartholm, one of the founders of the Pirate Bay, is to go on trial in Denmark next month for hacking crimes. Can you give some details on what work did he do for WikiLeaks as a 'consultant'? To what extent do you think his trials in Denmark and Sweden are related to this work? See Link to search.wikileaks.org
As a Nepalese, we saw our Royal Family massacred and the blame was on Prince Dipendra (son of the then King) who also happen to die the next day and the Younger brother of the then king Gyanendra takes the thrown of Late king Birendra, who also gets dethroned and gradually the nation falls under the reign of the Maoist rebels and the entire nation is now on havoc with no constitution as of yet and more violence and crime unaddressed. As a Nepalese neither I nor anyone believes what was feed to us, I still feel the real truth is somewhere and thats what we all Nepalese would want to know is there any Truth missing from what was told to us? Please share your thoughts. I am not personally aware of the situation, but I do recall it is discussed in our materials. See Link to search.wikileaks.org
Last updated: 2014-06-23 11:30 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

lecture 9: Scaling Bitcoin: Cryptocurrencies for the Masses Scaling Bitcoin Day 2 - Afternoon Session Scaling Bitcoin Kaizen Workshops - Scriptless scripts, adaptor signatures and their applications The Bitcoin Group #88 - Only One Blockchain - Scaling Bitcoin from Russia with Love to the FBI Scaling Bitcoin Day 1 - Morning Session - Part 2

Call for Proposals. The current Scaling Bitcoin Workshop will take place December 6 th -7 th at the Hong Kong Cyberport Function Rooms, 3/F., Core E, Cyberport 3 100 Cyberport Road, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 3166 3800 Fax: (852) 3166 3118 . We are accepting technical proposals for improving Bitcoin performance including designs, experimental results, and comparisons against other proposals. Scaling Bitcoin and Hacker Congress on the same weekend! 0.17.0 release, lots of transcripts of interesting talks, some vids and Friedenbach’s Forward Blocks proposal. Bitcoin Tech Talk Issue #104 October 1, 2018 This could look like this: Alice sends an HTLC that pays Bob through the bitcoin chain, then she constructs a transaction that puts in her collateral, has an output that should be the sum of whatever Bob is willing to pay plus her collateral, she partially signs it then sends it to Bob, then Bob adds his funds, and then he sends it to the chain. La session montréalaise de la conférence « Scaling Bitcoin » a commencé aujourd’hui. Valkir ( @mbaril010 ) couvre l’événement pour bitcoin.fr. 12/09 à 17h (heure locale) – 23h (heure fr) : J’ai participé au deux tables rondes qui me semblaient les plus intéressantes : Network Propagation et Miner-Developer Relations. It's a system of smart contracts using bitcoin which is similar to lightning network. Hopefully I can reuse a lot of code. People can't see the smart contracts though, that's why I use the word discreet instead of discrete. One refers to discrete log problem, the other one refers to discreet as in privacy.

[index] [10724] [34416] [20146] [22880] [4946] [11709] [21284] [29163] [21454] [30796]

lecture 9: Scaling Bitcoin: Cryptocurrencies for the Masses

See https://scalingbitcoin.org/presentations for presentation index and transcripts. Scaling Bitcoin Kaizen 2018 - Workshop Andrew Poelstra, Director of research, Blockstream. Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 9: Bitcoin difficulty, target, BITS - all you need to know - Duration: 48:16. Matt Thomas 6,738 views See https://scalingbitcoin.org/presentations for presentation index and transcripts. Donate: 18EQEiQBK1X2DyDL5Y18j78iw4NuNHoLej Save 20% off Amazon with Bitcoin at https://purse.io/ Featuring… Theo Goodman (Bitcoin Technical Analysis) @theog_...

#