Quark is a decentralized digital monetary system. It facilitates sending Quarks to Friends, Family Members Online Payments free of charges and charge-backs. Military Grade Encryption. No Bank or Government Control. Quark coins are based on the original idea of Bitcoin but improved, more secure, faster transaction times and zero fees. With improvements to design and security. There is also a greater coin supply with higher block rewards for miners. Quark is fully Open Source.
Shipping Starting at $5.5 with tracking but free if you buy enough. Should take 7-14 working days if it takes longer contact me and I will initiate an investigation. If they conclude the package is lost I will do a full refund but it will take up to a month so you'll need patience. Faster courier services are available with starting ranges of $40-85 increasing by weight, and DHL can access some areas my local post administration cannot. SEE HERE for where I am allowed to ship to by airmail. For instance, I can ship to all of the US now but I still can't ship to Russia, South Africa or South America. Please check first before purchasing to avoid disappointment. Payment
Paypal FF no notes Paypal will charge an additional $5 for international payments.
Paypal G&S +4.4%
Bitcoin - I can offer better prices due to the fair exchange rate and no fees, more willing to negotiate too.
Namecoin and the future of self-sovereign digital identity.
Namecoin's motto is "Bitcoin frees money – Namecoin frees DNS, identities, and other technologies." biolizard89 has done fantastic work on the DNS part, but let's focus on the identity use case here. Recent events have convinced me that digital identity on the internet is broken. Consider:
Twitter hack. Twitter's internal admin tool was compromised by hackers to commandeer ~130 top verified users including Biden, Obama, Buffet, Musk, Bezos, Apple, Uber, etc. to tweet out crypto scams on these users accounts.
GPT-3 is ready for release and will allow bad actors to AstroTurf and control the narrative on social networks for monetary and political gain at massive scale. Also take a peek at /SubSimulatorGPT2/ which is solely populated by GPT bots to get a taste.
ARTBreeder can create user profile images that are indistinguishable from real users.
Deepfakes can twist reality and manipulate faces and voices to turn real actors into puppets promoting false narratives.
What was true in 1993 when cartoonist Peter Steiner wrote "On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog" is still true today. The only difference is that identity is increasingly being weaponized using AI/ML so "On the internet, nobody knows you are a bot" would perhaps be more apt. I read the following comment from a user on slashdot yesterday:
For the time being, you can assume that this comment was written by a human being. You can click on my username, look back at my history of posts, and go, "OK, here's a bunch of posts, by a person, going back more than a decade, to the TIME BEFORE BOTS." That is, before the first year of 2020.
Since humans are likely to adopt the majority opinion, bad actors find real value in being able to control the narrative online by surrounding the reader with manufactured opinions by bots that due to advances in ML/AI are quickly becoming indistinguishable from real users. This amounts to a Sybil attack on the minds of digital content consumers and poses major threat to the integrity of our social fabric. Apart from the recent twitter incident used for scamming, nation states have been known to create massive bot armies of fake and hijacked user accounts to try and shift the narratives regarding the Hong Kong independence protests as well as national elections. This will only increase. Currently, our digital identity is fragmented into silo's largely controlled by government institutions and mega corporations (FAANG) based on a "Trust us" model. As recent events have proven, this is a bad model and in dire need of improvement/replacement. IMHO we need to move from "Trust us" to a "Trust but verify" model where the user is in full control of their digital identity. Namecoin can and should play an important role in building this 'web of trust composed of self-sovereign identities" as it is neutral (no owner), permissionless and secure (merge-mined). Daniel already developed a proof of concept with NameID but what can we do to take this further? Personally I'd like to see users create Namecoin identities and link them to their social identities (e.g. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc). Then whenever they create content, they sign it with their private keys. This would allow a reader to verify the content was created by the user. Content verification would have stopped the recent twitter hack, because even if the hackers would have access to internal admin tools they would not have the private keys that the users produce valid content with. "Not your keys, not your content" Content verification is only one part. Ideally a user would like to verify the integrity of the content creator as well. E.g. has this user passed human verification in any of the linked platforms? Does a trusted linked entity vouch for the reputation or integrity of this user (e.g. a government entity, financial entity or non-governmental organization?). This would require those platforms to allow linking of Namecoin ID with their Platform ID and allow lookup and signing of metadata provided by these platforms. (e.g. UserID Y is linked to PlatformID X and completed human verification on date Z, signed Twitter). I image users could install an extension similar to uBlock or Privacy Badger that contains human curated blacklists and heuristics that operate on Namecoin entities to perform these checks and flag or filter content and users that fail integrity checks. This would allow a users to automatically weed out potential bots and trolls but keep full control of this process themselves, avoiding potential censorship if this task would fall on the platform owners themselves (something governments are pushing for). We could take this even further and integrate Namecoin ID's in software and hardware devices as well. This could create chains of trust to verify the entire chain of content creation and manipulation to the final content posted on a social platform. Where every entity signs the resulting content. (E.g. camera -> photoshop -> twitter post) Apart from signing content/messages (PGP style). Namecoin could perhaps also be used for managing identity tokens in a users 'Identity wallet'. Looking into my physical wallet this could include things like credit cards, insurance cards, government issued IDs, membership cards, transportation cards, key cards, etc. This could be done similar to 'colored coins' on Bitcoin. But would have to support some type of smart contract functionality to be useful (e.g. expiring tokens, etc). I'm not a developer nor a technical writer, but I do think we need to think long and hard about how we can solve digital identity in a way that empowers users to trust and verify the content and identities of the peers we interact with online while also respecting privacy and preventing censorship by external parties. Namecoin could be the better path to building this web of trust, but given the current pace of AI/ML and the willingness by bad actors to weaponize it at scale against users interests we might not have much time. (Apologies for the rant!)
A clear over-reaction over my post due to self-promotion rule. Let’s talk about self-promo, censorship, independent content creators, centralization of information, and healthy environment.
This subreddit is exclusively dedicated to the mods of reddit. They can post and talk about anything they like.
As some of you noticed, I’ve posted my article in this sub yesterday, which received a very negative reaction. I can understand that some old mods are very sensitive to self-promo posts, so they might downvote an article even without reading it, but I was also told to literally “fuck off” by u/roionsteroids, his comment was upvoted, all my comments were downvoted, and my post was even deleted. Wow, seems like a very healthy environment, guys. Let me point out a few things about my original post:
The link didn’t have any harmful content.
The content of the article perfectly suited this sub and would be useful for at least some mods.
The article was only posted in this sub (well, apart from dactivism, which I’ve created and it has 2 members).
The response that I got was a clear over-reaction due to self-promo, so I’ve decided to write this post in order to start a discussion about self-promo, which is perfectly aligned with the purpose of this sub “to discuss moderation things”. So for those, who missed, let’s recap what has happened. Timeline.
Now, when we know a timeline, let’s discuss the details. Why did I post the article in this sub?
To increase exposure.
To increase impact.
Exposure. A useful post and self-promotion are not exclusive ideas at all. An author, who writes articles and posts them on Reddit, is not necessary a spammer. More than that, self-promotion per se is not even forbidden on Reddit, but its ratio is recommended to be within 10%, which I’ll later argue is an outdated rule that centralizes the distribution of information, making it easier for well-funded adversaries to control the narrative (corporate media, state-sponsored propaganda, etc.). Impact. After publishing an article, I’ve started writing Subreddit Improvement Proposals (SIPs) for different subs that I care about, e.g. CryptoCurrency, Monero, HongKong, etc. However, these SIPs take too much time to write and there are lots of crypto-related and activism-related subs, so I’ve also decided to post an article in a sub with lots of moderators to increase both exposure and impact. modclub seemed to be a good fit. Value of the article. Some people suggested that an article is not valuable, because all mods already know about flairs, wiki, and megathreads. Well, that might be true, but if you actually read the article, you will find many other more advanced recommendations like surveys, cultural exchanges, different ways to deal with noise, organize and request AMAs, etc. I didn’t find any other article with such a detailed list of best Reddit’s practices with images and links, so I believe it to be a unique content. However, I might be wrong, so feel free to link such article here, I’d love to review it and link it in open-source manual decentralized-activism. Also there are many subs that have 100K+ users and they still don’t use basic features like flairs or wiki, so even simple recommendations can be a good reminder for them. Anyway, it might be not a perfect article, but it definitely has many tips that will be useful for mods. What could have happened if the article was not downvoted? Firstly, less experienced mods would get ideas for their subs. Secondly, more experienced mods could get some ideas as well (e.g. surveys, cultural exchanges, event calendars, hubs, etc.) Thirdly, very experienced mods could give more cool suggestions that would be discussed, implemented, and also added to an original article and to an open-source manual. Now addressing my high ratio of self-promo. Here is a copy-paste response from another comment. I write lots of crypto-related articles, which perfectly fit into many crypto-related subs at once. For example, my articles about off-chain scaling were often posted in 5-6 subs ( CryptoCurrency, Ethereum, Bitcoin, btc, etc.) and were still upvoted and discussed. One of the posts got 166 comments, which is a good proof that it's a valuable contribution, rather than spam, despite being posted in many subs. Another example is articles about digital activism that also fit into many subs. For example, I was posting HK privacy/security suggestions not only in privacy-oriented subs, but also in subs of different countries, where protests have started. I don't care much whether somebody will call me a spammer, but I do care that the knowledge of Hong Kong activists will be shared with many other activists across the world, because that can potentially save their lives. OK, enough about me.
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? (c) Henry David Thoreau
Self-promotion in general. Now, when I’ve shared my thoughts about yesterday’s situation, let’s talk about self-promotion in general. Many mods here contribute their free time to a good cause, which is great, and I do a lot of activism completely free as well. Luckily, I was also able to find a great sponsor (LocalCryptos) that supports most of my articles since 2019, so I get at least some compensations for my blog. However, many mods are not content creators themselves, so they are missing out a few crucial things. I’d argue that self-promotion is a good thing if done properly regardless of a ratio: 10%, 50%, or 100%. Let me explain. Benefits of self-promotion. Firstly, when an author posts his content, he will get all the notifications about new comments, so he will be able to participate in the discussion, give an accurate response, and may be edit his article/website with a new or more correct information. That’s exactly what happened with me many times before. If somebody would post my article, I would most likely miss the conversation or react too late. Secondly, Reddit is one of the few platforms for independent creators to get exposure, because an exposure on Reddit depends on the quality and relevance of the content, rather than the amount of followers (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). A high-quality content will be upvoted, while a low-quality content will be downvoted by users, so there is no reason to remove the post, unless it has some harmful content. If mods censor out self-promo by removing or downvoting such posts, then they contribute to centralization of distribution of information. Some big subs even auto-remove all medium posts, which is extremely dangerous, because it cuts off many alternative voices. Centralization of information. Well-funded adversaries like corporate media or state-sponsored news outlets and think-tanks dominate the internet exactly because it’s very hard for independent creators to get exposure. For example, without Reddit my articles would get hardly any exposure, despite the fact that some of them are a unique content that was very contributional to certain communities and sparked many discussions. Censoring out an author just for “self-promo” is a direct attack on freedom of speech. I understand that many mods have years of experience and became conservative over the time, so they take self-promo very personally. However, sometimes it’s nice to step back and see whether old rules are still relevant and what is the long-term impact of these rules. For example, I don’t like when people tell me to “fuck off”, but I like spaces that allow such behavior, because it’s an important part of freedom of speech. 10% rule is outdated. Firstly, there are many people like me, who use Reddit to get daily news, but they don’t interact with a content. For example, I usually scroll certain subs like CryptoCurrency or HongKong without even logging in due to UX and privacy concerns. Some of these people happened to be content creators, so it’s completely natural that they will have a high “self-promo” ratio. Secondly, this 10% rule will stop only honest content creators. Bad actors can easily cheat the system by: - spamming other content to keep their own content at 10% ratio, - using fake accounts, which is very easy on Reddit due to lack of e.g. a phone number verification (note that for well-funded adversary even a strict KYC is not an obstacle to create fake accounts), - simply asking their friends to post their content, which is a ridicules UX. As a result, I’d argue that nowadays this 10% rule increases centralization of distribution of information and encourages a malicious behavior. Proposal. May be the next time you want to censor something out (remove or downvote) due to self-promo, ask yourself these questions: - Does this post have any harmful content? - Was this link posted in many other subs? - Did author participate in the discussions and answer questions about his content? - Will this content be useful for the community? Bottom-line. If you’re very sensitive to self-promo posts, then go ahead and downvote them, but calling people “spammers”, deleting their posts, and telling them to “fuck off” without actually reading their content is not a healthy environment. P.S. You should also understand that it was not posted in a sub with a few million people and I won’t get many clicks even if a post would get upvoted. I mean, come on, this sub has less than 5K members with 10-20 online. And I’m getting so much shit for honestly sharing my own content instead of gaming the system. There is definitely something wrong with that.
My opinion: When it comes to the software I can choose to run, it matters more that I can trust the code. Whether it is binary or source code - what matters most to me is that I have a verifiable state of it, which I have tested i.e. used practically.  Programs changing under the hood is dangerous. There have been lots of recent public cases where code on public repositories has been changed maliciously, affecting a great number of downstream users.  This can happen with open source or closed source (e.g. when you get your programs or parts of them delivered to you from some vendor in pure executable form). People change their minds, they update their software, sometimes in ways that break your own (if you're a developer) or cause you harm as a user, if you depend on them.  This can be unintentional (bugs), or intentional (malware). They can also be compromised in many ways. Bribery, blackmail, or other manipulation [4, 5] Companies change owners and expand, potentially affecting their loyalties and subjecting them to new jurisdictional coercion. While we do assign a level of trust to people and companies with whom we transact, I put it to you that when it comes to running software that needs to be secure and do what it claims, it's better not to extend much trust to the developer, but better to make them demonstrate why their code should be worthy of your trust.
Make them prove that it does what they claim.
Make them prove it contains no other instructions that do things that you don't want.
Make sure you can reproduce the proof of their claims (here is where we rely on the scientific method). A method is only as good as the artifacts it provides which let you reproduce such a proof yourself.
The largest dark web child pornography site in the world has been taken down after IRS followed Bitcoin transactions Comments | Link Quebec to offer legal cannabis at $4.49 a gram, beating grey-market price Comments | Link HK protesters demand CCTV footage from Tiu Keng Leng school following death of 15-year-old student: Chan, a swimmer and a regular participant in the ongoing protests was last seen on Sept 19. Her body was found naked in the sea three days later. Comments | Link
US Hearthstone players banned for Hong Kong protest Comments | Link A Lakers Fan Raised Almost $43k to Hand Out "Stand with Hong Kong" T-Shirts at the Season Opener Comments | Link Elijah Cummings, esteemed longtime Baltimore congressman, has died at 68 Comments | Link
From 2007 to 2017, the number of suicides among people ages 10 to 24 increased 56 percent Comments | Link The “kids these days effect”, people’s tendency to believe “kids these days” are deficient relative to those of previous generations, has been happening for millennia, suggests a new study (n=3,458). When observing current children, we compare our biased memory to the present and a decline appears. Comments | Link The largest-ever natural experiment on wealth taxes found that they work as intended — both raising revenue and controlling income inequality. The taxes had the greatest impact on the top .1% wealthiest. Comments | Link
New Bill Promises an End to Our Privacy Nightmare, Jail Time to CEOs Who Lie: "Mark Zuckerberg won’t take Americans’ privacy seriously unless he feels personal consequences. Under my bill he’d face jail time for lying to the government," Sen. Ron Wyden said. Comments | Link The Public Is Clearly on the Side of Net Neutrality Comments | Link Marc Benioff says it's time to break up Facebook Comments | Link
8 families find out they have been paying respects to the wrong graves for 39 years Comments | Link Paris zoo unveils the blob, an organism with no brain but 720 sexes Comments | Link Mum of 44 kids banned from having any more children Comments | Link
What is something most people need to hear but no one has the guts to tell people? Comments What would be the worst possible movie quote to yell as you climax? Comments Successful people who got crappy grades in high school or college - what are you doing now and how did (or didn't) your grades affect your success/career? Comments
A simple cover for our laundry room connections, pun added by the missus Comments | Link Needed a new dog treat lid. Flexible print. Comments | Link Drilling guide to find the middle of the wood and make a nice vertical hole :) Comments | Link
[OC] Top 5 accidental causes of death in Chicago, IL Comments | Link Color-Balancing Vote Margins and Vote Totals in the US Election Map [OC] Comments | Link [OC] Highly rated horror movies are less likely to have many jump scares Comments | Link
TIL that after years of competition between Chuck E Cheese and Showbiz Pizza, Chuck E Cheese went bankrupt and was bought by Showbiz Pizza, who then proceeded to rebrand their locations as Chuck E Cheese. Comments | Link TIL 5-10% of Melanesians (a dark-skinned Pacific Island people) have blonde hair. This is not due to mixture with European populations, but rather due to an independently arising mutation. Comments | Link TIL that according to Graham Nash, Jimi Hendrix was unbeatable at the game Risk, especially while on LSD. Comments | Link
The note my dad wrote to my mom on the back of his high school portrait when they were seniors. They ended up going to prom together and have now been married for 29 years :) Comments | Link After the assassination of senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, a lot of Americans went to see his funeral car as it traveled by rail from New York to Washington. A photographer who traveled with the casket took this photo as the train passed through Baltimore. Comments | Link Kid with Power Glove circa 1989 Comments | Link
Aww, now he can fly with the- Comments | Link Last flight to land in Jazan airport, saudi arabia before the airport close down due to massive sandstorm. Comments | Link Layers upon layers Comments | Link
Though it has been around since the 1950s, the rockabilly culture is still going strong in Japan! Comments | Link 10 year old kid standing tall after being arrested in Hong Kong for shouting “revolution of our time, glory to Hong Kong” Comments | Link A shirt I gifted my sister in 2013 Comments | Link
Golden boy gets distracted by another handsome golden boy. Comments | Link Bobcat after a boy saved him from a fire (not my clip btw) Comments | Link Does this mean we are Best Friends Now? Comments | Link
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.
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:
Bitcoin was always intended to be upgraded honestly, overtly, explicitly, and transparently - by hard forks as proposed by Satoshi - where you must explicitly "opt in" by deliberately upgrading your code.
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...
AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize is still a (slow-motion but nonethless long-term fatal) bug, and
AXA-funded Blockstream's Anyone-Can-Spend SegWit hack/kludge is still a poison-pill.
People are so sick and tired of AXA-funded Blockstream's lies and sabotage that 40% of the network is already mining blocks using BU - because we know that BU will fix any bugs we find (but AXA-funded Blockstream will lie and cheat and try to force their bugs down everyone's throats).
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.
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 hackkludge 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.
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.
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
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
Hashrate: went from 54 to 76 PH/s, the low was 50 and the new all-time high is 100 PH/s. BeePool share rose to ~50% while F2Pool shrank to 30%, followed by coinmine.pl at 5% and Luxor at 3%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 95.6 DCR (+3.0) as of Sep 3. During the month, ticket price fluctuated between a low of 92.2 and high of 100.5 DCR. Locked DCR represented between 3.8 and 3.9 million or 46.3-46.9% of the supply. Nodes: there are 217 public listening and 281 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 2% at v1.4.0(pre) (dev builds), 5% on v1.3.0 (RC1), 62% on v1.2.0 (-5%), 22% on v1.1.2 (-2%), 6% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Almost 69% of nodes are v.1.2.0 and higher and support client filters. Data snapshot of Aug 31.
Obelisk posted 3 email updates in August. DCR1 units are reportedly shipping with 1 TH/s hashrate and will be upgraded with firmware to 1.5 TH/s. Batch 1 customers will receive compensation for missed shipment dates, but only after Batch 5 ships. Batch 2-5 customers will be receiving the updated slim design. Innosilicon announced the new D9+ DecredMaster: 2.8 TH/s at 1,230 W priced $1,499. Specified shipping date was Aug 10-15. FFMiner DS19 claims 3.1 TH/s for Blake256R14 at 680 W and simultaneously 1.55 TH/s for Blake2B at 410 W, the price is $1,299. Shipping Aug 20-25. Another newly noticed miner offer is this unit that does 46 TH/s at 2,150 W at the price of $4,720. It is shipping Nov 2018 and the stats look very close to Pangolin Whatsminer DCR (which has now a page on asicminervalue).
www.d1pool.com joined the list of stakepools for a total of 16. Australian CoinTreeadded DCR trading. The platform supports fiat, there are some limitations during the upgrade to a new system but also no fees in the "Early access mode". On a related note, CoinTree is working on a feature to pay household bills with cryptocurrencies it supports. Three new OTC desks were added to exchanges page at decred.org. Two mobile wallets integrated Decred:
Coinomiadded Decred to their Android and iOS wallets. In addition to the Apple App Store and Google Play you can download the APK directly. Coinomi features an integrated cryptocurrency exchange and is the first company to offer a mobile Decred wallet.
Reminder: do your best to understand the security and privacy model before using any wallet software. Points to consider: who controls the seed, does the wallet talk to the nodes directly or via middlemen, is it open source or not?
Bit Dialsannounced DCR support via GloBee at their bitdials.eu luxury boutique. Their separate supercar and classic car shop bitcars.eu also accepts DCR, either via GloBee or with manual invoicing in case of privacy concerns.
Targeted advertising report for August was posted by @timhebel. Facebook appeal is pending, some Google and Twitter campaigns were paused and some updated. Read more here. Contribution to the @decredproject Twitter account has evolved over the past few months. A #twitter_ops channel is being used on Matrix to collaboratively draft and execute project account tweets (including retweets). Anyone with an interest in contributing to the Twitter account can ask for an invitation to the channel and can start contributing content and ideas there for evaluation by the Twitter group. As a result, no minority or unilateral veto over tweets is possible. (from GitHub)
Meetup in Puebla City, Mexico, organized by @elian. (photo, slides, missed in July issue)
@joshuam discussed Decred and decentralized organizations with Craig Laundy, Federal Minister for Small Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation with the Australian Government, at @YBFVentures. (photos)
Meetup at @TheBlockCafe in Lisbon, Portugal. @mm presented "Decred 101 - Governance with Skin in the Game" and @moo31337 talked about Decred's 2018 roadmap. (photos: 123)
Meetup in Taipei, Taiwan. @morphymore made a short intro of Decred and noted: "After the talk, many have approached to tell me that they literally don’t hear of Decred until today, and are interested in finding out more about the merit of a hybrid consensus system.". Longer report here, some photos and a video are here.
@eSizeDave introduced Decred to the SILC Undergraduate Program students at @YBFVentures. (photo)
OKEx Global Meetup Tour in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. @joshuam gave a brief presentation covering the history of Decred, how the project functions, and the importance of governance. Afterwards he joined a panel discussion and spoke about Decred's incentives for long term viability. (video, video, photo)
Blockchain Futurist Conference in Toronto, Canada. @zubairzia0 noted: "Devs and the community were held in high regard for the people who knew about decred ... one positive thing I remember was someone defending us saying 'Decred does not need a booth', I believe that comment was reflective of the quality of projects being showcased at the conference.". (photo)
Meetup at @YBFVentures in Melbourne, Australia. @joshuam discussed Decred with Graham Stuart, U.K. Minister for International Trade. (news, photos)
Small meetup with Jackson Palmer in Melbourne, Australia. (photo)
Hawthorne Street Fair in Portland, USA. Raedah Group was out answering questions about crypto and Decred. (photos)
Blockchain APAC in Melbourne, Australia. @joshuam joined a panel discussion with reps from banking, university and ISO/TC 307. @eSizeDave reports: "This enterprise conference was indeed a whole lot better than I expected. The presentations were actually full of very worthwhile information from credible people, articulated aptly to a very government, academic, and corporate crowd, who genuinely took on board valuable insights. Good to know some of these key people are Decred holders and stakers as well. I got to use the entire day to speak directly with some of the most pivotal personalities in this particular populace. Ongoing relationships have been built and strengthened.". (photos: 123)
For those willing to help with the events:
BAB: Hey all, we are gearing up for conference season. I have a list of places we hope to attend but need to know who besides @joshuam and @Haon are willing to do public speaking, willing to work booths, or help out at them? You will need to be well versed on not just what is Decred, but the history of Decred etc... DM me if you are interested. (#event_planning) The Decred project is looking for ambassadors. If you are looking for a fun cryptocurrency to get involved in send me a DM or come talk to me on Decred slack. (@marco_peereboom, longer version here)
One private work channel was successfully migrated to Matrix.
Stylish room avatars were set.
@Haon has prepared a short guide to help new Matrix users get started and join the Decred rooms.
A thread was started to discuss changes to Decred jargon with the intent to make it more consistent and accessible to newcomers. The question whether changing "official" terminology requires stakeholder approval was touched in this thread and in #documentation.
Project fund transparency and constitution were extensively discussed on Reddit and in #general.
Pre-proposal to use Politeia to approve Politeia as a legitimate decision-making tool for Decred.
Reddit: substantive discussion about Decred cons; ecosystem fund; a thread about voter engagement, Politeia UX and trolling; idea of a social media system for Decred by @michae2xl; how profitable is the Obelisk DCR1. Chats: cross-chain trading via LN; plans for contractor management system, lower-level decision making and contractor privacy vs transparency for stakeholders; measuring dev activity; what if the network stalls, multiple implementations of Decred for more resilience, long term vision behind those extensive tests and accurate comments in the codebase; ideas for process for policy documents, hosting them in Pi and approving with ticket voting; about SPV wallet disk size, how compact filters work; odds of a wallet fetching a wrong block in SPV; new module system in Go; security of allowing Android app backups; why PoW algo change proposal must be specified in great detail; thoughts about NIPoPoWs and SPV; prerequisites for shipping SPV by default (continued); Decred vs Dash treasury and marketing expenses, spending other people's money; why Decred should not invade a country, DAO and nation states, entangling with nation state is poor resource allocation; how winning tickets are determined and attack vectors; Politeia proposal moderation, contractor clearance, the scale of proposals and decision delegation, initial Politeia vote to approve Politeia itself; chat systems, Matrix/Slack/Discord/RocketChat/Keybase (continued); overview of Korean exchanges; no breaking changes in vgo; why project fund burn rate must keep low; asymptotic behavior of Decred and other ccs, tail emission; count of full nodes and incentives to run them; Politeia proposal translations and multilingual environment. An unusual event was the chat about double negatives and other oddities in languages in #trading.
DCR started the month at USD 56 / BTC 0.0073 and had a two week decline. On Aug 14 the whole market took a huge drop and briefly went below USD 200 billion. Bitcoin went below USD 6,000 and top 100 cryptos lost 5-30%. The lowest point coincided with Bitcoin dominance peak at 54.5%. On that day Decred dived -17% and reached the bottom of USD 32 / BTC 0.00537. Since then it went sideways in the USD 35-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0064 range. Around Aug 24, Huobi showed DCR trading volume above USD 5M and this coincided with a minor recovery. @ImacallyouJawdy posted some creative analysis based on ticket data.
StopAndDecrypt published an extensive article "ASIC Resistance is Nothing but a Blockchain Buzzword" that is much in line with Decred's stance on ASICs. The ongoing debates about the possible Sia fork yet again demonstrate the importance of a robust dispute resolution mechanism. Also, we are lucky to have the treasury. Mark B Lundeberg, who found a vulnerability in atomicswap earlier, published a concept of more private peer-to-peer atomic swaps. (missed in July issue) Medium took a cautious stance on cryptocurrencies and triggered at least one project to migrate to Ghost (that same project previously migrated away from Slack). Regulation: Vietnam bans mining equipment imports, China halts crypto events and tightens control of crypto chat groups. Reddit was hacked by intercepting 2FA codes sent via SMS. The announcement explains the impact. Yet another data breach suggests to think twice before sharing any data with any company and shift to more secure authentication systems. Intel and x86 dumpsterfire keeps burning brighter. Seek more secure hardware and operating systems for your coins. Finally, unrelated to Decred but good for a laugh: yetanotherico.com.
About This Issue
This is the 5th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room on Matrix or Slack. Contributions are welcome too. Some areas are collecting content, pre-release review or translations to other languages. Check out @Richard-Red's guide how to contribute to Decred using GitHub without writing code. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Haon, jazzah, Richard-Red and thedecreddigest.
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.
They've finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - now they're begging for some kind of "compromise". But actually, markets aren't about compromise. Markets are about competition. Markets are about winner-takes-all. And the Bitcoin whitepaper never mentions anything about "compromise". It simply says that 51% of the hashpower determines what is Bitcoin. And as we know - the best coin will win. Which will probably be Bitcoin Unlimited with its market-based blocksizes - and not SegWit with its 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize based on a dangerous anyone-can-spend spaghetti-code soft-fork. Let's review how this played out:
Core/Blockstream accepted $76 million in "fantasy fiat" from the "legacy ledger" of central bankers via their buddies at AXA.
And Core/Blockstream accepted censorship on the sad subreddit of r\bitcoin.
And lo and behold, Core/Blockstream's reliance on fiat funding and central planning and censorship has culminated in this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit, with the following worthless "features" that nobody even wants:
Yet-another centrally-planned 1.7MB maybe-someday blocksize - combined with some random arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" that nobody asked for,
Fixes for low-priority non-problems like malleability and quadratic hashing,
By listening to real people in the actual market, and by following Satoshi's principles as stated in the whitepaper, Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to (surprise! surprise!) offer what real people in the actual market actually want - which is currently:
FlexTrans is much better than SegWit Also, these independent, non-fiat-financed devs developed Flexible Transactions, which is way better than SegWit. Flexible Transactions can easily fix malleability and quadratic hashing - while also introducing a simple, easy-to-use, future-proof tag-based format similar to JSON or HTML permitting future upgrades without the need for a hard fork. So Flexible Transactions provides the same things as SegWit - without the dangerous mess of SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork hack - which Core/Blockstream tried to force on everyone - because they want to take away our right to vote via a hard fork - because they know that if we actually had a hard fork a/k/a full node referendum, everyone would vote against Core/Blockstream. The market wants to decide the blocksize So more and more of the smart, non-Blockstream-aligned miners, starting with ViaBTC and now including many others, have been adopting Bitcoin Unlimited - because they understand that:
Market-based blocksizes are the right, consensus-based mechanism to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling to solve the urgent problems of transaction delays and network congestion - now and in the future
Every increase in the blocksize roughly corresponds to the same increase squared in terms of price
ie 2x bigger blocks will lead to 4x higher price, 3x bigger blocks will correspond with 9x higher price, etc. - which means that bigger blocks will make everyone happy: more profits for miners, and no more high fees or transaction delays for users.
Now Core/Blockstream are starting to bitch and moan and beg about "compromise" And actually, we couldn't answer "Sorry it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to. Because markets and economics and cryptocurrencies aren't about compromises. Markets are about competition - they're about winner-takes-all. Nakamoto Consensus is about 51% of the hashpower decides what the rules are. Imagine if Yahoo Email were to suddenly start begging with Google Mail for "compromise". What would that even mean in the first place?? Yahoo wrote crappy email code - based on their crappy corporate culture - so the market abandoned their crappy (and buggy and insecure) email service. Core/Blockstream is similar in some ways to Yahoo. They wrote crappy code - because they have a crappy "corporate culture" - because they accept millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers at places like AXA - and because they accept censorship on shit-forums like r\bitcoin - which is why they have no clue about the real needs of real people in the real market in the real world. Censorship and fiat made Core/Blockstream fragile and out-of-touch Core/Blockstream devs enjoy the "luxury" of being able to put their head in the sand and hide from the reality of the "shreaking" masses of actual people actually trying to use Bitcoin, because:
They get millions of dollars in fiat shoveled to them by central bankers,
They conduct their "debates" in the fantasy-land of the shit-forum r\bitcoin where all the important comments get deleted and all the intelligent posters got banned long ago - including quotes from Satoshi.
And then (surprise! surprise!) the following happened:
At any moment now, at the Schelling point of our own choosing, more hashpower can also "dump Core" and start using Bitcoin Unlimited - which is why everyone involved with Core/Blockstream is now shitting in their pants.
But in a decentralized, permissionless, open-source system like Bitcoin, there is not a single thing that CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc at their shitty little AXA-funded startup Blockstream or u/theymos and u/bashco on their shitty little censored forum r\bitcoin can do to stop Bitcoin Unlimited from taking over the network - because in open-source and in economics and in markets, the best code and the best cryptocurrency wins. Everyone (except Core/Blockstream) predicted this would happen So now - predictably - the Core/Blockstream devs and their low-information supporters are all running around saying "Nobody could have predicted this!" But actually everyone has been shouting at the top of their lungs predicting this for years - including the most important old-time Bitcoin devs supporting on-chain scaling like Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik who were all "censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed" - plus new-time devs like Peter Rizun u/Peter__R who provided major scaling innovations like XThin - by the vicious drooling toxic authoritarian goons involved with Core/Blockstream. Everyone has been predicting the current delays and congestion and high fees for years, out here in the reality of the marketplace, in the reality of the uncensored forums - away from Core/Blockstream's centralized back-room closed-door fiat-funded censorship-supported PowerPoint presentations in Hong Kong and Silicon Valley, away from years and years of Core/Blockstream's all-talk-no-action scaling stalling conferences. The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about "compromise" and "censorship" and "central planning". The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about yet-another centrally planned blocksize (Now with 1.7MB! SegWit is scaling!TM) which some economically ignorant fiat-funded dev team happened to pull out of their ass and bundle into a radical and irresponsible spaghetti-code SegWit soft-fork. Markets aren't about "compromise". Markets are about competition. As u/ForkiusMaximusrecently pointed out: The market couldn't even give a fuck if it wanted to - because markets and cryptocurrencies are not about the politics of "compromise" - they're about the economics of competition. Markets are about decentralization, and they're about Nakamoto Consensus, where 51% of the hashpower decides the rules and everyone else either gets on the bandwagon or withers away watching their hashpower and coin price sink into oblivion. So, anyone who even brings up the topic of "compromise" is simply showing that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work, and how Nakamoto Consensus works. This actually isn't very surprising. Blockstream CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and all the rest of the so-called "Core devs" and all their low-information hangers-on like the economic idiot Blockstream founder Mark Friedenbach u/maaku7 have never really understood Bitcoin or markets. And that's fine and normal. Plenty of individuals don't understand markets very well. But such people simply lose their own money - and they generally don't get put in charge of losing $20 billion of other people's money. Markets don't need managers or central planners. Markets run very well on their own - and they don't like central planning or censorship. Now Core/Blockstream has finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase So now some people at Core/Blockstream and some of their low-information supporters have have started bitching and moaning and whining about "compromise", as they sink into the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - while their plans are all in shambles, and they've failed in their attempts to hijack our network and our currency. Meanwhile, the Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about a bunch of central planners and censors whining about "compromise". Bitcoin Unlimited just keeps stealing more and more hashpower away from Core - until the day comes when we decide to fork their ass into the garbage heap of shitty, failed alt-coins. Fuck Blockstream/Core and the central bankers and censors they rode in on We told them for years that they were only shooting themselves in the foot with their closed-door back-room fiat-financed wheeling and dealing and their massive censorship. We told them they were only giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with. Now that it's actually happening, we couldn't say "it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to - because there is no such thing as "compromise" in markets or cryptocurrencies. Markets are all about competition And Bitcoin is all about 51% of the hashpower.
Bitcoin Core decided to bet on hard-coded centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize based on a a shitty spaghetti-code soft-fork. That's their choice. They made their bed now let them lie in it.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited decided to bet on market-based blocksizes. And that's the market's choice. Bitcoin Unlimited listened to the market - and (suprise! surprise!) that's why more and more hashpower is now mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks.
How to accept Dogecoin with your business, and why. A few pointers.
THE UPDATED VERSION OF THIS POST CAN BE FOUND HERE. You are a business owner and sell goods or services. You heard about Dogecoin. You wonder how you can use it in your business. This thread is for you. If you have no idea what Dogecoin is, read up on it here (click). In short, it is a digital currency that is perfect for everyday use. Read on if you want to know why it would be good for your enterprise.
Why should I accept payments in Dogecoin?
Dogecoin offers you:
international transfers of any size at near-zero cost (currently less than one cent)
no risk of chargebacks or cc fraud
no base fees
no vendor lock-in
no setup costs except a computer
fast and easy setup (literally minutes to get a wallet)
Dogecoin can be exchanged to national currencies. You can do this easily by yourself or use the automatic conversion offered by some payment processors (all is explained further down). You can also just keep your Dogecoin and spend it or offer it to your employees! :) Dogecoin is fun and it gets ever more useful the more people like you use and accept it. There are other merchants who have gone this path before you - you can read interviews about them and their experiences on this blog. You can also talk with other merchants in /dogevendors, check out these testimonials ([1, 2], 3), search this subreddit and post any questions you have right here!
I want to accept donations. What are my options?
Just download the client and put up the wallet address up on your page with donation info. Done! That's it! If you want something snazzy, check out this widget or this one (or this one) (or this one). If you need to track who sent you how much money (for goodies and that), you could ask that donators tell you that they're sending you a very specific amount of coins (e.g. 100.424242), and match it to their name. However, this can be abused as your transaction history is public. If you're actually selling stuff, check out the next section instead.
I sell stuff online. What are my options?
You have a lot! It boils down to one of these:
1) Manually accept payment with Dogecoin
2) Process payments automatically by integrating a Dogecoin API/checkout into your web store
3) Enter your stuff at a site that sells it for you (think Etsy or eBay, just with Dogecoin)
The last option can be interesting if you don't have your own web store, are selling digital goods and/or are just selling on as a side business. If your business is your main income, handling payment yourself is probably better. 1) Manually processing transactions All you need for this is a Dogecoin wallet. You simply generate a payment address for each of your customers, send it to them and confirm that your coins arrived at the address. This is super fast to set up and there is absolutely no commitment. If you just want to try it out before investing a lot of effort, just set up a wallet (either with the Dogecoin desktop client or an online wallet (listed under Browser "here") and let your customers know that they can now pay with Dogecoin. You can use some of these buttons if you wish( 12345) and browse this asset repository of useful artwork. The graphical interface is still being developed, but you can browse the files and find license information already :) 2) Automatically processing transactions Check out the section on APIs and payment processors further down! 3) Selling stuff through a 3rd-party site There are a number of sites that function a lot like eBay, Etsy and Xmart. You enter your products and they handle the payment and web store stuff. This is most convenient if you have digital goods to sell (music, books...) and want to send them out automatically.
suchlist (Permanent listings, auto-adjusted price, auctions, no fees)
DogeLet (Permanent listings, widget to sell on your website, digital goods ok, 3% fee)
stuffcoins (Auction site, digital items ok and automatic, 2.5% fees)
Dogeslist (Permanent listings, digital items ok, ~4% fees)
If you are an Etsy user who wants to accept Dogecoin, click here.
I sell from a physical store or location. What are my options?
All you need is an internet connection in your store and a web-capable device, such as a mobile phone, cheap tablet or a nearby PC. On-site, your customers can send you coins using their phone, or you can sell coupons for your goods online in advance. DogePos is a point-of-sales app that is open source and Koupah announced that they will accept Doge as well. You can use or apply for all of these tools right now! Either way, all you need is a way to 1) convert a USD price into Doge, and to 2) check that the coins have arrived in your wallet. To check your wallet balance and Doge prices, you can use the app MyDOGE oniPhones and iPads, and this app on Android devices. This is one of many useful price converter websites you can bookmark. Checking your balance on the PC can be done with the wallet client. If you want to sell your goods or coupons for them online, it might be easiest use a ready-made stores capable of digital distribution. Check point "3)" in the above section for some options.
Dogecoin payment processors, APIs, checkouts
Currently, the established platforms accepting Dogecoin seem to be these:
You can probably find people who have used one of these in this thread. This guy volunteered his code for automatic currency conversion and his help setting up the plugin for OpenCart, for example! If you are tech-inclined, you could run your own payment server with dogecoind and an API like this. This is not yet ready for laypeople though, so don't do that unless you want to get messy.
Exchanging Doge to USD/EUGBP/other national currencies
If you don't have your payment processor do it for you, at some point you will want to get your Doge converted to your currency of choice, which you should do at an exchange. Keep in mind that you will have to get registered and verified at the exchange, which can take up to a week. Transfers to and from national currency can take a few days, but trading and transferring digital currencies is very fast and usually near-instant. The following exchanges let you trade your Doge for national currency directly (last updated Sep 17):
ANXPRO (lots of currencies, but based in HK so deposit/withdrawal fees are high)
If your currency is not listed above, you can either sell your Doge here, or exchange them to Bitcoin and then sell those. I find Kraken (EUR, KRW, USD) to be the best option for EUR, but you can sell Doge for BTC on all of the exchanges mentioned above, or choose one from this list. To sell BTC for national currency, you can also go to Justcoin or LocalBitcoins. There are many similar sites - just pick the one you like best! Things get developed incredibly fast and Dogecoin is not even a year old. This will only get easier, so keep checking back! Justcoin is looking to trade Dogecoin to national currency, and others are sure to follow.
Alright! How do I promote my business now that I accept Dogecoin?
Note that there's a collection of Dogecoin artwork and assets for you to use in this repository, complete with license information so you can design your promotions and website with it. 1) Submit your business to these directories:
You will get views, especially if you offer an interesting product or a Doge-related promotion. Hint: the best promotion is to offer a few % off for all Dogecoin purchases. Also post and comment to this just to discuss your plans and ask your questions. Come talk to us here and in /dogevendors, we are a fun community :) This post is not updated anymore. Check the thread linked at the top of this post for the newest version. The last big edits were on Aug 4 (DogeAPI, Prelude) and Sep 17 (Updates on exchanges and websites) and Oct 22 (Moolah).
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.
Henri de Castries is not only the the CEO of insurance giant AXA (he's actually stepping down later this year) - he's also the chairman of the Bilderberg Group - the secretive group which includes most of the major players in the current global debt-backed financial system:
Bitcoin, by having no counterparty risk, threatens to expose this whole fraudulent casino of fantasy accounting on the part of major financial institutions - which is probably why companies like AXA want to control Bitcoin development - so they can artificially suppress the blocksize, and artificially suppress the the bitcoin price.
My guess: The 2.1 quadrillion satoshis (21 million bitcoins x 100 million satoshis per bitcoin) of real money starting to circulate on the Bitcoin network threaten to expose the fact that the 1.2 quadrillion dollars of fantasy fiat circulating in the worldwide derivatives casino are actually worthless. And this is probably the real reason why AXA - the insurance company with the largest derivatives exposure - is trying to control Blockstream, in order to control Bitcoin development, and suppress Bitcoin price.
Many people might not have noticed, Greg Maxwell has already publicly (and naïvely) *admitted* that he is deliberately attempting to SUPPRESS THE PRICE OF BITCOIN. If Bitcoin were a government-regulated market, his sorry ass would be in jail by now for market manipulation - which is illegal.
Greg Maxwell: If you imagine that everyone in the world would wake up tomorrow and know in their heart of hearts that bitcoin would be the true reserve currency of the world, then this would not be good news. The result would be war. People would fight over the supply of bitcoin.
The above statement is a surprisingly revealing (and inculpatory) admission by Gregory Maxwell (self-appointed dictator of Bitcoin monetary policy CTO of Blockstream, and architect of the Core stalling scaling road-map signed by 57 devs and wannabe devs). It is quoted from the transcript of the invite-only, semi-transparent (manually transcribed, not recorded) Fed meeting private meeting between Core/Blockstream devs and Chinese miners, held in Silicon Valley on July 30-31, 2016. There is only one way that a trader (or a government regulator) would interpret the above statement by Gregory Maxwell nullc, where he (perhaps inadvertently but) openly and brazenly admits that he is trying to prevent a free market where "people would fight over the supply of bitcoin". Greg's statement constitutes a clear and damning admission of attempted market manipulation. Market manipulation is typically used for activities such as insider trading, and front-running - which are illegal in regulated markets. Greg Maxwell has publicly admitted that he is attempting to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price - at least in the short term (perhaps so that he and certain insider "friends" of his can continue to buy bitcoins while they're still waaay below their possible future value of one million dollars per bitcoin?). Fuck you, Greg Maxwell- and thecentral bankersyou rode in on.
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.
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.
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!?
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."
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"
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?
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.
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).
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.
Most bitcoin ATMs in Hong Kong are operated by Coinhere, with HK Bitcoin ATM being the second-most popular operator. Founded in Mong Kok, HK Bitcoin ATM currently has five bitcoin ATM locations in ... From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. It's possible to make payments using Bitcoin which are released if and only if some knowledge is disclosed by the payee and to do this in a trustless manner where neither the payer or payee can cheat. This is accomplished using the combination of a hash-locked transaction and a bitcoin-external protocol to set things up so that the data revealed ... Bitcoin Exchanges. Buying Bitcoin on exchanges is usually the cheapest option in terms of fees and is relatively fast and convenient too. But it often requires a few days to set up an account and get verified, and you can expect exchanges based in Hong Kong to ask for your personal information like HKID or address proof before you can start using their accounts. Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Über uns. Stellenangebote. Impressum & Kontakt. Mitwirken. Mitglied werden. Jetzt spenden. Mittelverwendung. Vereinskanäle. Unser Blog Support OSINT HK. Bitcoin; Patreon Subscription × Search for: Recent Posts. Posted in Findings Misinformation. Report: Tear Gas Use in Hong Kong. Editors note: This report was generously written by Dan Kaszeta of Strongpoint Security. As panic about tear gas ‘toxicity’ spread after a Stand News reporter was diagnosed with chloracne, we asked Dan for a technical review of the many ...
Reviews and commentary on digital currency technologies. Jormungandr 0.7.0-rc7 network activity from a one node perspective in a network of over 200 Cardano nodes stake pools online at various times. Bitcoin Cash Rallies Here's what you need to know - Duration: 20:18. DataDash 50,091 views. 20:18. Roger Ver on Bitcoin Cash at the LA Bitcoin Meet Up Group on Nov 9th 2017 - Duration: 1:19:37. ... Bitcoin price pumps as mystery whale lays down a cool $100,000,000! Who was the whale and what other macro trends continue to influence the price. GIVEAWAY Twitter - https://twitter.com ... Bitcoin Trading Challenge 2,145 views. 25:16. Bookmap Education - TSLA Order Flow and One-Click Trading - Duration: 13:57. Bookmap 2,318 views. 13:57. Order Flow Practice - Duration: 25:20 ... Commodities King Dennis Gartman: Bitcoin Is Nonsense, And I Won't Buy Or Sell Any CNBC. Category News & Politics; Show more Show less. Loading... Advertisement ...