Why Cryptocurrency and Talent Development Go Hand in Hand

Careers in the Growing Bitcoin Industry

BitcoinCareers is focused on connecting companies in the Bitcoin industry with the best talent.
[link]

Ransom is my favorite part of BCH /s

My favorite part about BCH is implementations holding solutions and/or refusing to implement fixes to known problems for ransom until said implementation gets a payout they deem acceptable to edit their codebase. /s https://read.cash/@Bitcoin_ABC/what-is-bitcoin-abcs-fix-block-time-oscillations-project-7aa24b51
more specifically: "With adequate funding in hand by 30 Apr 2020, and assuming the availability of qualified engineering talent, Bitcoin ABC aims to deliver a solution to the network in time for the 15 Nov 2020 network upgrade."
Fundraising is one thing. But saying that unless we get enough money by April 30th we won't work on a problem is another. Of course this wasn't stated directly, but it is implied when past behaviour regarding willingness to work with others / listen to community feedback (EDA, DAA, IFP, etc.) is taken into consideration.
submitted by GregGriffith to btc [link] [comments]

It's encouraging to see so many talented people working to solve a difficult problem in Bitcoin

It's encouraging to see so many talented people working to solve a difficult problem in Bitcoin submitted by Coinivore to btc [link] [comments]

Vitalik Buterin: Bitcoin Cash underrated, getting Schnorr signatures ahead of Bitcoin, lots of real technical talent

"Bitcoin Cash, I think, is underrated at this point. If you follow the community they've become considerably more sane ever since they've expunged the Bitcoin SV people and they're getting Schnorr signatures ahead of Bitcoin. They have a lot of real technical talent in there and it's getting interesting."
-Vitalik Buterin speaking at ETHCapeTown (Apr. 19th, 2019)
submitted by cryptoslate to btc [link] [comments]

Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.

Centrally planned blocksize is not a desirable feature - it's an insidious bug which is slowly and quietly suppressing Bitcoin's adoption and price and market cap.
And SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" hack isn't just a needless kludge (which Core/Blockstream/AXA are selfishly trying to quietly slip into Bitcoin via a dangerous and messy soft fork - because they're deathly afraid of hard fork, knowing that most people would vote against their shitty code if they ever had the balls to put it up for an explicit, opt-in vote).
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember:
You Do The Math, and follow the money, and figure out why Bitcoin has been slowly failing to prosper ever since AXA started bribing Core devs to cripple our code with their centrally planned blocksize and now their "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit poison-pill.
Smart, honest devs fix bugs. Fiat-fueled AXA-funded Core/Blockstream devs add bugs - and then turn around and try to lie to our face and claim their bugs are somehow "features"
Recently, people discovered bugs in other Bitcoin implementations - memory leaks in BU's software, "phone home" code in AntMiner's firmware.
And the devs involved immediately took public responsibility, and fixed these bugs.
Meanwhile...
So the difference is: BU's and AntMiner's devs possess enough social and economic intelligence to fix bugs in their code immediately when the community finds them.
Meanwhile, most people in the community have been in an absolute uproar for years now against AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize and their deadly Anyone-Can-Spend hack/kludge/poison-pill.
Of course, the home-schooled fiat-fattened sociopath Blockstream CTO One-Meg Greg u/nullc would probably just dismiss all these Bitcoin users as the "shreaking" [sic] masses.
Narcissistic sociopaths like AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CTO Adam and their drooling delusional attack dog Luke-Jr (another person who was home-schooled - which may help explain why he's also such a tone-deaf anti-market sociopath) are just too stupid and arrogant to have the humility and the shame to shut the fuck up and listen to the users when everyone has been pointing out these massive lethal bugs in Core's shitty code.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr, and Theymos are the most damaging people in Bitcoin
These are the four main people who are (consciously or unconsciously) attempting to sabotage Bitcoin:
These toxic idiots are too stupid and shameless and sheltered - and too anti-social and anti-market - to even begin to recognize the lethal bugs they have been trying to introduce into Bitcoin's specification and our community.
Users decide on specifications. Devs merely provide implementations.
Guys like Greg think that they're important because they can do implemenation-level stuff (like avoiding memory leaks in C++ code).
But they are total failures when it comes to specification-level stuff (ie, they are incapable of figuring out how to "grow" a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market by maximally leveraging available technology).
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos apparently lack the social and economic awareness and human decency to feel any guilt or shame for the massive damage they are attempting to inflict on Bitcoin - and on the world.
Their ignorance is no excuse
Any dev who is ignorant enough to attempt to propose adding such insidious bugs to Bitcoin needs to be rejected by the Bitcoin community - no matter how many years they keep on loudly insisting on trying to sabotage Bitcoin like this.
The toxic influence and delusional lies of AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are directly to blame for the slow-motion disaster happening in Bitcoin right now - where Bitcoin's market cap has continued to fall from 100% towards 60% - and is continuing to drop.
When bitcoin drops below 50%, most of the capital will be in altcoins. All they had to do was increase the block size to 2mb as they promised. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68219y/when_bitcoin_drops_below_50_most_of_the_capital/
u/FormerlyEarlyAdopter : "I predict one thing. The moment Bitcoin hard-forks away from Core clowns, all the shit-coins out there will have a major sell-off." ... u/awemany : "Yes, I expect exactly the same. The Bitcoin dominance index will jump above 95% again."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yfcsw/uformerlyearlyadopter_i_predict_one_thing_the/
Market volume (ie, blocksize) should be decided by the market - not based on some arbitrary number that some ignorant dev pulled out of their ass
For any healthy cryptocurrency, market price and market capitalization and market volume (a/k/a "blocksize") are determined by the market - not by any dev team, not by central bankers from AXA, not by economically ignorant devs like Adam and Greg (or that other useless idiot - Core "Lead Maintainer" Wladimir van der Laan), not by some drooling pathological delusional authoritarian freak like Luke-Jr, and not by some petty tyrant and internet squatter and communmity-destroyer like Theymos.
The only way that Bitcoin can survive and prosper is if we, as a community, denounce and reject these pathological "centralized blocksize" control freaks like Adam and Greg and Luke and Theymos who are trying to use tricks like fiat and censorship and lies (in collusion with their army of trolls organized and unleashed by the Dragons Den) to impose their ignorance and insanity on our currency.
These losers might be too ignorant and anti-social to even begin to understand the fact that they are attempting to sabotage Bitcoin.
But their ignorance is no excuse. And Bitcoin is getting ready to move on and abandon these losers.
There are many devs who are much better than Greg, Adam and Luke-Jr
A memory leak is an implementation error, and a centrally planned blocksize is a specification error - and both types of errors will be avoided and removed by smart devs who listen to the community.
There are plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in C++ - plus plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in other languages as well, such as:
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos are being exposed as miserable failures
AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, their drooling attack dog Luke-Jr and their censor Theymos (and all the idiot small-blockheads, trolls, and shills who swallow the propaganda and lies cooked up in the Dragons Den) are being exposed more and more every day as miserable failures.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos had the arrogance and the hubris to want to be "trusted" as "leaders".
But Bitcoin is the world's first cryptocurrency - so it doesn't need trust, and it doesn't need leaders. It is decentralized and trustless.
C++ devs should not be deciding Bitcoin's volume. The market should decide.
It's not suprising that a guy like "One-Meg Greg" who adopts a nick like u/nullc (because he spends most of his life worrying about low-level details like how to avoid null pointer errors in C++ while the second-most-powerful fiat finance corporation in the world AXA is throwing tens of millions of dollars of fiat at his company to reward him for being a "useful idiot") has turned to be not very good at seeing the "big picture" of Bitcoin economics.
So it also comes as no suprise that Greg Maxwell - who wanted to be the "leader" of Bitcoin - has turned out to be one of most harmful people in Bitcoin when it comes to things like growing a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market and economy.
All the innovation and growth and discussion in cryptocurrencies is happening everywhere else - not at AXA-funded Blockstream and r\bitcoin (and the recently discovered Dragons Den, where they plan their destructive social engineering campaigns).
Those are the censored centralized cesspools financed by central bankers and overrun by loser devs and the mindless trolls who follow them - and supported by inefficient miners who want to cripple Bitcoin with centrally planned blocksize (and dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit).
Bitcoin is moving on to bigger blocks and much higher prices - leaving AXA-funded Blockstream's crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust
Let them stagnate in their crippled shit-coin with its centrally planned, artificial, arbitrary 1MB 1.7MB blocksize, and SegWit's Anyone-Can-Spend hack kludge poison-pill.
Bitcoin is moving on without these tyrants and liars and losers and sociopaths - and we're going to leave their crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust.
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y9qtg/coreblockstream_are_now_in_the_k%C3%BCblerross/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

The only acceptable "compromise" is SegWit NEVER, bigger blocks NOW. SegWit-as-a-soft-fork involves an "anyone-can-spend" hack - which would give Core/Blockstream/AXA a MONOPOLY on Bitcoin development FOREVER. The goal of SegWit is NOT to help Bitcoin. It is to HURT Bitcoin and HELP Blockstream/AXA.

TL;DR: Adding a poison pill like SegWit to Bitcoin would not be a "compromise" - it would be suicide, because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt, incompetent, toxic dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA, who are only interested in staying in power and helping themselves at all costs - even if they end up hurting Bitcoin.
Most of this post will probably not be new information for many people.
It is being provided mainly as a reminder, to counteract the constant flood of lies and propaganda coming from Core/Blocsktream/AXA in their attempt to force this unwanted SegWit poison pill into Bitcoin - in particular, their latest desperate lie: that there could somehow be some kind of "compromise" involving SegWit.
But adding a poison pill / trojan horse like SegWit to our code would not be some kind of "compromise". It would be simply be suicide.
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is an existential threat to Bitcoin development - because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt / incompetent centralized dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA who are directly to blame for the current mess of Bitcoin's crippled, clogged network and drastically falling market cap.
Furthermore, markets don't even do "compromise". They do "winner-takes-all". Any coin adopting SegWit is going to lose, simply because SegWit is such shitty code:
"Compromise is not part of Honey Badger's vocabulary. Such notions are alien to Bitcoin, as it is a creature of the market with no central levers to compromise over. Bitcoin unhampered by hardcoding a 1MB cap is free to optimize itself perfectly to defeat all competition." ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y7vsi/compromise_is_not_part_of_honey_badgers/
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill / trojan horse for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember: The real goals of Core/Blocsktream/AXA with SegWit are to:
  • permanently supress Bitcoin's price / adoption / network capacity / market cap / growth - via SegWit's too-little, too-late centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize;
  • permanently control Bitcoin development - via SegWit's deadly "anyone-can-spend" hack.
In order to see this, all you need to do is judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their actions (and the results of their actions - and by their shitty code):
Purely coincidental... ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Do not judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their words.
As we have seen, their words have been just an endless stream of lies and propaganda involving changing explanations and shifting goalposts and insane nonsense - including this latest outrageous concept of SegWit as some kind of "compromise" which some people may be "falling for":
Latest Segwit Trickery involves prominent support for "SW Now 2MB Later" which will lead to only half of the deal being honored. Barry Silbert front and center. Of course.
~ u/SouperNerd
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btm5u/latest_segwit_trickery_involves_prominent_support/
The people we are dealing with are the WORST type of manipulators and liars.
There is absolutely NO reason why they should not deliver a 2 MB block size at the same time as SegWit.
This is like a dealer saying "hey gimme that $200 now, I just gotta run home and get your weed, I promise I'll be right back".
~ u/BitAlien
Barry Silbert's "proposal" is just another bait and switch
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btl26/barry_silberts_proposal_is_just_another_bait_and/
Right, so the wording is:
I agree to immediately support the activation of Segregated Witness and commit to effectuate a block size increase to 2MB within 12 months
[Based] on [their] previous performance [in the Hong Kong agreement - which they already broke], they're going to say, "Segregated Witness was a block size increase, to a total of 4MB, so we have delivered our side of the compromise."
~ u/edmundedgar
Barry is an investor in Blockstream. What else needs to be said?
~ u/coinlock
Nothing involving SegWit is a "compromise".
SegWit would basically hijack Bitcoin development forever - giving a permanent monopoly to the centralized, corrupt dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA.
  • SegWit would impose a centrally planned blocksize of 1.7MB right now - too little and too late.
  • Segwit would permanently "cement" Core/Blockstream/AXA as the only people controlling Bitcoin development - forever.
If you are sick and tired of these attempts by Core/Blockstream/AXA to sabotage Bitcoin - then the last thing you should support is SegWit in any way, shape or form - even as some kind of so-called "compromise".
This is because SegWit is not primarily a "malleability fix" or a "capacity increase".
SegWit is a poison pill / trojan horse which would put the idiots and traitors at Core/Blockstream/AXA permanently and exclusively in control of Bitcoin development - forever and ever.
Here are the real problems with SegWit (which Core/Blockstream/AXA is not telling you about):
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
"So, Core wants us to trust miners not to steal Segwit's anyone-can-spends, but will not let them have a say on block size. Weird."~Cornell U Professor and bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/60ac4q/so_core_wants_us_to_trust_miners_not_to_steal/
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
Here is a list (on medium.com) of 13 articles that explain why SegWit would be bad for Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/646kmv/here_is_a_list_on_mediumcom_of_13_articles_that/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly (self.btc)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
As Benjamin Frankline once said: "Given a choice between Liberty (with a few Bugs), and Slavery (with no Bugs), a Free People will choose Liberty every time." Bitcoin Unlimited is liberty: market-based blocksizes. SegWit is slavery: centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize & "anyone-can-spend" transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zievg/as_benjamin_frankline_once_said_given_a_choice/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA is terrified of hard forks:
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
If some bozo dev team proposed what Core/Blockstream is proposing (Let's deploy a malleability fix as a "soft" fork that dangerously overcomplicates the code and breaks non-upgraded nodes so it's de facto HARD! Let's freeze capacity at 1 MB during a capacity crisis!), they'd be ridiculed and ignored
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5944j6/if_some_bozo_dev_team_proposed_what/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA has been trying to choke the Bitcoin network and suppress Bitcoin's price & adoption. (Hint: Blockstream is controlled by central bankers who hate Bitcoin - because they will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds as a major world currency).
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/
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/
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
Double standards: The other sub would go ballistic if Unlimited was funded by AXA. But they are just fine when AXA funds BS-core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62ykv1/double_standards_the_other_sub_would_go_ballistic/
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
Bilderberg Group -> AXA Strategic Ventures -> funds Blockstream -> Blockstream Core Devs. (The chairman of Bilderberg is Henri de Castries. The CEO of AXA Henri de Castries.)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/576ac9/bilderberg_group_axa_strategic_ventures_funds/
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62htv0/why_is_blockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_unullc_trying/
Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/689y1e/coreaxablockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_ceo_adam_back/
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xjkof/im_angry_about_axa_scraping_some_counterfeit/
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/
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
Just as a reminder: The main funder of Blockstream is Henri de Castries, chairman of French insurance company AXA, and chairman of the Bilderberg Group!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uw6cc/just_as_a_reminder_the_main_funder_of_blockstream/
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jgkxv/bitcoin_can_go_to_10000_usd_with_4_mb_blocks_so/
And finally, here's one easy way that Bitcoin can massively succeed without SegWit - and even without the need for any other major or controversial changes to the code:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

For the amount of money that Theymos is paying for new forum software, we could run a bitcoin commercial during the Super Bowl.

Context here: http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2mcdb4/thermos_is_spending_100000_worth_of_his_donated/cm367gr?context=3
For the amount of money that Theymos is paying these four twenty-somethings to make forum software, he could employ Gavin Andresen full-time, six times over! Most people are in agreement that the Foundation is a dangerous source of centralization, right? Just pointing out that this kid who is a university student and involved in extracurriculars (not a "highly-skilled full-time developer" as Theymos claims) is getting paid $300k a year to write forum software. Gavin Andresen's salary as the full time lead developer of the entire bitcoin protocol is $209k a year.
Theymos, I've come to the conclusion that you are not being malicious or trying to cheat anyone, but this seems like an extremely irresponsible use of funds. My hope with this post is to start a community discussion about how we might use these millions of dollars sitting around (well, $1.5 million at these current low prices) to do some really cool shit for bitcoin.
A bitcoin superbowl ad could be a reality within one year, with money that is already sitting around. And instead it's going to some kids writing message board software in javascript.
edit: I'm not saying a superbowl ad is where they money should be spent, just that there are so many more worthy ideas than paying an eye-poppingly egregious figure to code from scratch something which already exists. Some ideas the money could be used on:
(You could do all of the above and still have more than a million dollars left).
submitted by BeijingBitcoins to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Hardwork beats talent = Bitcoin beats gold

Hardwork beats talent = Bitcoin beats gold submitted by CryptosDNA to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Banjo doodling

submitted by curtisbouchermusic to TheArtistStudio [link] [comments]

Vitalik Buterin: Bitcoin Cash underrated, getting Schnorr signatures ahead of Bitcoin, lots of real technical talent

"Bitcoin Cash, I think, is underrated at this point. If you follow the community they've become considerably more sane ever since they've expunged the Bitcoin SV people and they're getting Schnorr signatures ahead of Bitcoin. They have a lot of real technical talent in there and it's getting interesting."
-Vitalik Buterin speaking at ETHCapeTown (Apr. 19th, 2019)
submitted by libertarian0x0 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

If you were central bank or government, how would you coopt, control or constrain Bitcoin?

If central banks try to hurriedly buy all Bitcoin, the price will skyrocket and generate unhelpful (from the CB's viewpoint) positive publicity. - non starter of an idea
If governments shut down (in ALL countries) the centralised on/off ramps there will still be over-the counter trade. Also a non-starter.
Doing both of those things would probably push a more privacy oriented crypto currency like DASH, XMPXMR or ZCASH into a much greater market share, and they would have triggered a Whach-A-Mole process - that would be their worst nightmare.
Still, suppressing any widespread uptake of Bitcoin is fairly easy and possible for central banks who own the print button for their local currency.
The couple of thousand Bitcoiners that CB's make wealthy through these tactics will lose that wealth via normal errors they make, capital gains taxes and/or inheritance taxes on their death.
Eventually, almost all BTC ends up as a central bank resource of various countries, but no other alt-coin can gain the valuations or network effect to challenge BTC or local national currencies.
Upshot? If CB's do recognise that this slow long term approach is an effective way to suppress or even slow the disruption the crypto currencies could provoke, and then they act that way......
For the people who get Bitcoin now and survive a lot of the next century, you are effectively getting paid by your local CB to HOLD BTC and slow any possible uptake...
'Money for nothing and the chicks for free' as the song goes.
Not a conspiracy theory - a plan that some central bank(s) could elect to use (or not)
Just saying..... and if I can think of this, so can bankers and government types.
EDIT
Trader result - long term upward trend with unpredictable swings and mega whales (Centrals Banks) that operate against TA and without a profit goal. Very easy to get rekt in such a market, and even easier with leverage :-)
submitted by ronohara to btc [link] [comments]

Core mustn’t abuse its power, lest they lose it all

Let me be clear, I want Core to stay in power. They have the most talented Bitcoin developers, and are true Bitcoin patriots. They want whats best for Bitcoin.
They have created an amazing thing called segwit. It will almost double capacity, and it will fix malleability issues, paving the way for the lightening network. I think virtually everyone agrees it should be implemented. Gavin Andresen wants it, virtually every bitcoin company wants it (https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/), and even Roger Ver, the Dash pumper, kinda sorta wants it.
However, as of this writing, only 26% of miners are signaling for it. Why?
To understand this, you first have to ask yourself, which bitcoin companies do NOT want a blocksize increase? It seems that everyone, even the Chinese with their shitty internet, wants a blocksize increase. As far as I can tell, the only bitcoin organizations that are against an increase are Core and Blockstream. There is a large economic consensus for at least a modest blocksize increase, but because Core is against it, it becomes a ‘contentious’ hard fork and thus wont ever see the light of day.
Core essentially has a veto stamp, they can simply label any hard fork as ‘contentious’, and bam its dead on arrival. This power is now clashing with economic consensus, and the community is becoming more and more divided as transaction fees rise.
I think there is little doubt that transaction fees are becoming too high. A hard fork at this point is inevitable, and if it is done without Core’s blessing then a new development team will take its place. I do not want to see this happen.
Satoshi Consensus is simple, you vote with your CPU power, and the longest chain wins. BU is NOT an attack on the network. It is NOT being done by people with bad intentions. Satoshi Consensus relies on the fact that over 50% of the hashpower is being done by miners who want whats best for bitcoin. Miners are incentivized by one simple equation:
(reward + number transactions x average_fee) x exchange rate
Yes they want a high average_fee, but they also want more transactions, and, more importantly, a high exchange rate. A high exchange rate requires doing what is best for Bitcoin, and if this ‘Satoshi Consensus’ fails, then I think Bitcoin should fail with it. That won’t happen though, because Satoshi Consensus is what makes Bitcoin a honey badger. And I think this honey badger, at the end of the day, doesn’t give a shit about who the current development team is. No one controls the honey badger.
From the white paper:
“The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
Core should agree to a blocksize increase to just 2MB, on the condition that segwit is also activated. Since it is a hard fork, any of the soft-fork complexity that the opposition has complained about can be cleaned up (this might be FUD, sorry if it is). Increasing the blocksize to 2MB and activating segwit at the same time would quadruple transaction throughput, and I think that should be enough to kick the can down the road and see if lightning network takes off. 100% full 2MB blocks will lead to a block chain growth of 105.2GB a year which is entirely reasonable. BU would probably lead to something much larger.
If a hardfork that doesn’t have Core’s blessing gets to 75% of hashpower, something like BU, then it will inevitably win and Core will be out. I’ve heard Core people saying that they will just hard fork the difficulty of the old chain so that it doesn’t die, but if they did that then they could no longer use the argument of trying to stay backwards compatible. And even then, that hard fork might not get to consensus, and it’ll split further.
Core, for the love of Jesus, just increase the blocksize to 2MB and activate segwit. It is what almost all of the bitcoin community wants. The only people who do not want it is Core, Blockstream, and loyal Core followers like Tone Vays, who literally said he is ok with $100 fees if thats what Core wants. Please do the right thing before economic consensus seizes the power away from you, and hands it to a less experienced, less talented team like BU.
submitted by jChristopherj to btc [link] [comments]

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent submitted by Ricktap458 to BestBitcoinNews [link] [comments]

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent submitted by Hellterskelt to bitcoin_is_dead [link] [comments]

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent submitted by leftok to atbitcoin [link] [comments]

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent submitted by fishballdart to Only_Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent

Startup Providing Convenient Bitcoin On-Ramp Lands Google Talent submitted by Link0000054 to Bitcoin_2019 [link] [comments]

Fidelity Investments Seeks Talent for Its Digital Assets Division. It is reportedly planning to roll out bitcoin (BTC) trading for institutional clients in the coming weeks.

Fidelity Investments Seeks Talent for Its Digital Assets Division. It is reportedly planning to roll out bitcoin (BTC) trading for institutional clients in the coming weeks. submitted by SilverLiningsCrypto to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

BRAIN DRAIN: Bitcoin industry steals top talent from banks and tech companies. Smart, innovative people choosing greater purpose over money and corporations - that is what guarantees a bight future for bitcoin and crypto!

BRAIN DRAIN: Bitcoin industry steals top talent from banks and tech companies. Smart, innovative people choosing greater purpose over money and corporations - that is what guarantees a bight future for bitcoin and crypto! submitted by Yourefornn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Seeing The Light! Promoting Bitcoin to my colleagues at our team building Paint and Prosecco event. Some of them asked what's with the eyes? (aside from my lack of artistic talent). This lead to an in depth discussion over drinks afterwards. Converting them slowly.

Seeing The Light! Promoting Bitcoin to my colleagues at our team building Paint and Prosecco event. Some of them asked what's with the eyes? (aside from my lack of artistic talent). This lead to an in depth discussion over drinks afterwards. Converting them slowly. submitted by CryptoGryll to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Binance’s Accelerator Program Help Bitcoin. “It was designed to support talented developers in creating free and open-source software that would enable new innovations and businesses in the crypto economy.”

submitted by stevieyongieg to BNBTrader [link] [comments]

Meanwhile, the Diablo Mining Company is imploding

Here's the cliff notes version. Diablo is a talented BitCoin developer who started a mining fund on the GBLSE. He initially offered shares with a valuation of 1btc each, which were to be used on future mining hardware and infrastructure purchases.
Now it is apparent that he has likely not purchased any hardware, and he has been diluting value in a series of stock swaps reportedly as low as .0133btc/share. Usagi's post is a good jumping board into the topic. Shareholders have been demanding some kind of action by the GLBSE operator nefario.
Just another train wreck to watch, I suppose, this one presumably not pirate related. Take it as another learning lesson/cautionary tale.
submitted by Fjordo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Latest News on Bitcoin Confidential: Roadmap, Wallets and Search for New Talents

Latest News on Bitcoin Confidential: Roadmap, Wallets and Search for New Talents submitted by SeriousSemp to BitcoinConfidential [link] [comments]

Ethereum 2.0, Bitcoin BTC TOP 10 BEST Got Talent Singers auditions EVER! With Complete Interview Value of Bitcoin - Jalisco Talent Land @ Home - #BlockchainHome - #QuédateEnCasa y Aprende #Conmigo ¿EL BITCOIN HA MUERTO! CONFERENCIA TALENT LAND 2019 The Real Truth Behind Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency In 2020

Bitcoin Unlimited is a full Bitcoin client and is an alternative to the original Bitcoin Core client. It offers high levels of security, privacy, and stability. This client is a full Bitcoin node that helps the Bitcoin network relay transactions, however, it requires at least 50 gigabytes of hard disk space and is not recommended for new users Welcome to BitCo Academy It's our very own online academy designed to train, educate, empower and inform, anytime and anywhere. The Online Academy will host the latest training, certification courses, presentations and induction material. Limited Talent. A Korn Ferry Institute study concludes that a major world crisis is imminent, because, by 2030, demand for skilled workers will outstrip supply, resulting in a global talent shortage of more than 85.2 million people. Moreover, the study forecasts that talent shortages could slow the ongoing digital revolution. Nordic Creative Talent Award Home. Taxable and non-taxable events of the Bitcoin The Bitcoin are the digital currency and they are secured by the cryptography they make it impossible to counterfeit Zenn_Colahal; 10/19/2019 ; How to buy Bitcoin with the help of the debit card Buying Bitcoin with the help of a debit card is a simple Attracting New Talent. A recent survey of Bitcoin investors found that over 50% are between 18 and 34 years old. The same young people who are involved with or interested in the cryptocurrency

[index] [31249] [29903] [24143] [20759] [27892] [8113] [20909] [6391] [845] [12798]

Ethereum 2.0, Bitcoin BTC

50+ videos Play all Mix - THE WOLF OF BITCOIN Inanna Sarkis YouTube ON DUTY (Ep. 1) Inanna Sarkis & King Bach - Duration: 5:13. Inanna Sarkis 10,499,580 views TOP 10 BEST Got Talent auditions EVER! I choose these songs on my personal point of view and it can be different from what you might have selected. So don't become Grumpy :P Thanks! Do let me know ... ¿EL BITCOIN HA MUERTO! CONFERENCIA TALENT LAND 2019 FunOntheRide. Loading... Unsubscribe from FunOntheRide? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 45.4K. ... Bitcoins Giveaway 0.05 For my subscribers! and chance to win a free script! Free bitcoins giveaway of 0.05 BTC for 2 winners every week i will choose if qualified. how to join? Giveaway Rules : 1 ... Best Bitcoin Mining Software Best BTC Miners in 2020: Bitcoin Miner Machine The State of Bitcoin Mining Best Bitcoin Miners CGMiner EasyMiner MultiMiner BFGMiner NiceHash GUI Miner DiabloMiner ...

Flag Counter