China Enlists Its ‘Great Firewall’ to Block Bitcoin ...

We know you heard this one before, but China wants to ban bitcoin…again. Only this time the government plans to use one of its most far reaching tools, the Great Firewall of China, to completely prevent anyone in the country from reaching foreign exchange sites.

We know you heard this one before, but China wants to ban bitcoin…again. Only this time the government plans to use one of its most far reaching tools, the Great Firewall of China, to completely prevent anyone in the country from reaching foreign exchange sites. submitted by CryptoRusinfo to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

为什么我们要举报?为什么我们国家必须要有墙,为什么我们一定要屏蔽谷歌,为什么我们要打击违法VPN!

Why must we have GFW (Great Fire Wall) in China? Why do we have to block Google outside? Why do we have to ban illegal VPN services?!
有些人总是有疑问,为什么我们中国的互联网有GFW防火墙?
为什么谷歌在我国被屏蔽?
为什么我们严惩那些贩卖和使用违法VPN的人士?
那些就让我们来告诉你为什么我们国家要有墙,为什么我们要屏蔽谷歌,为什么我们要打击违法VPN!
Some people always have questions like these: Why must we Chinese have a GFW firewall?
Why is Google blocked in our country?
Why do we severely punish those who sell or use illegal VPNs?
Now it’s the time. Let us tell you why our country must have GFW, why we must block Google, why we have to crack down on illegal VPN!
境外中文网站总有种观点,以为自由的网络是不应该有墙的,以为我们政府造墙是为了愚弄民众,以为我们政府是邪恶的。他们总是煽动我们,他们希望我们翻墙看到他们想说的,他们希望我们推翻墙推翻政府。
There is always a view in the Western dominated cyberspace that internet should be free (information freedom) and there shouldn’t be any walls. They think that our Chinese government is evil to build the GFW. They assume our government is a tyrannical dictator and the GFW is used to fool the people and monitoring the people like the 1984. So they always shake us, they want us to overthrow the government, and they want us to cross the GFW to read what they want to say.
实在是看不惯这些智障言论了!让我们来告诉你为什么我们国家要有GFW(Great FIre Wall)防火墙,为什么我们要屏蔽谷歌,为什么我们要打击违法VPN!
THESE VIEWS ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!!
WE ARE REALLY FED UP BY THOUSE STUPID SPEECHES!!
Let us tell you why our country has a GFW (Great Fire Wall) firewall, why do we want to block Google, why do we want to crack down on illegal VPNs!
有些人利用境外那些网站传播反动言论,色情内容,比如博讯大纪元草榴社区等等。然而按照我们的法律,这些网站是应该被关闭的。
The reason is simple. Some people use websites outside our country to spread reactionary speeches and pornography contents. These people created websites such as the Boxun (博讯), the Epoch Times (大纪元) and T66Y (草榴). They also use Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube to spread such contents. However, according to our laws, spreading these contents must be blocked.
智障言论1,有些人被境外组织洗脑,认为这些内容的网站不该被关。 Stupid speech 1. Some people may argue that these contents should not be blocked. They say that these contents are not blocked in the West. They may also pop up with some online surveys saying that some Chinese netizens like these contents.
这种言论显然不对,去问问我国多数人是不是认为要关这些内容,不要光听网上的
This kind of speech is obviously wrong. We Chinese have to listen to our people not listen to the West! Also, we can’t just listen to the Internet users of our people, we have to listen to the majority of our people. Online surveys are meaningless, ask our people from door to door to see whether they like those contents or not!!
智障言论2,有些人想挑拨离间,认为封锁境外网站是政府想要维持自身的统治。 Stupid speech 2. Some people want to provoke dissension, that the blockade of these websites is the Chinese government wants to maintain its own rule (not for the Chinese people’s interest).
这种人只会轻信境外反动媒体,丝毫看不到我国政府和我党带领人民闹革命站起来了,带领我们拥有核武器成为世界大国,还带领1.2亿人脱贫致富!在当前特朗普打贸易战的当下,美国想要撸走我们的利益,显然是我国政府在维护我们国家的利益!! 但是谷歌却不尊重我们不认同我国的法律,谷歌不管这些内容不删除这些内容!那么该咋办??除了封锁他们还有啥办法??
These stupid people only read the Western reactionary media. They did not see that it is our Communist Party and the Chinese government who have led the Chinese people to take the revolution in the 1930s and stand up. It is just under our Chinese government’s correct leadership, we had possessed the nuclear weapons. It is our Chinese government who had led 120 million people to get rid of poverty and become rich! At this moment when Donald Trump is fighting trade war with us, the United States wants to take away our money. Obviously, it is our government who is protecting the interests of our people!!
So clearly, blocking those reactionary speeches and pornography contents is the interest of the majority of the Chinese people. And our government is representing us doing the right thing.
But those Western companies don’t understand. They don’t block those illegal contents even after we request them to do. For example, the evil Google does not respect us and does not agree with our laws. Google does not delete those contents! They call it by a good name “freedom of speech” but they are actually help spreading those illegal contents. So what can we do?? Other than blocking them, is there any other way??
智障言论3,有些人被洗脑,以为谷歌是为了维护言论自由。他们甚至拿出宪法说,违反了宪法第三十五条“中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威的自由。” Stupid speech 3. Some Chinese netizens are brainwashed, they think that Google is to maintain freedom of speech. They even took out the Chinese Constitution and said that blocking it violated Article 35 of the Constitution. “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, associate, march, and demonstrate
这种人并没有学透宪法,他们忽略了我国宪法第五十一条:中华人民共和国公民在行使自由和权利的时候,不得损害国家的、社会的、集体的利益和其他公民的合法的自由和权利。 事实就是这种反动言论有可能造成社会动荡,危害我国的安全稳定,影响了我国人民生存和发展的权力和自由! 所以我们当然要封锁他们,但是有些人利用违法VPN偷偷访问那些网站,该怎么办??当然就要举报那些违法VPN!!
Such stupid people did not learn all the Constitution. They have neglected Article 51 of our Constitution: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China must not harm the national, social, and collective interests and the legitimate freedoms of other citizens when exercising their freedom and rights.”The fact is that such reactionary speeches may cause social unrest, endanger China’s security and stability, and affect the right our people’s survival and development!
So of course, we have to block those illegal contents, but there are still some people use illegal VPNs to secretly visit those websites. what should we do?? Of course, we must crack down those illegal VPNs!!
智障言论4,有些人不了解我国政策,以为我国屏蔽所有的VPN是愚民政策。 Stupid speech 4. Some people do not understand China’s policies, thinking that it is a foolish policy to blocking all VPNs.
这些人对我国政策一知半解危言耸听,他们不知道我国工信部出台的《关于清理规范互联网网络接入服务市场的通知》,我国工信部早已说过,对于“一些外贸企业、跨国企业因办公自用等原因,需要通过VPN等方式跨境联网时,可以向依法设置国际通信出入口局申请合法资质”。我们要打击的是那些违法VPN,而不是合法VPN。
Stupid speech 4. Some people do not understand China’s policies, thinking that it is a foolish policy to blocking all VPNs. These stupid people are ignorant of our policy, and they do not know the “Notice on Clearing and Regulating the Internet Access Service Market”(《关于清理规范互联网网络接入服务市场的通知》) issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China (MIIT). The MIIT has already said that “Some foreign trade enterprises and multinational enterprises need to use VPNs for reasons such as office use. They can apply for legally qualified VPNs. What we are going to strike is those illegal VPNs, not the legitimate VPNs.”
有了这些知识,我们就可以很容易应对一些智障的挑衅言论,比如:
With this knowledge, we can easily deal with some stupid provocative questions raised by some brainwashed Chinese netizens, such as:
智障言论5,为什么人民日报、环球时报的编辑能上推特,而我上不了? Stupid speech 5. “Why do editors of the People’s Daily and the Global Times can push on Twitter, but I can’t get on?”
我国人民日报、环球时报是合法访问境外网站的,就是靠有资质的VPN懂了吗??! 作为个人,如果你在正规单位,比如人民日报、环球时报、还有各大科研院所,互联网企业等,你可以问你的领导要!如果他们不懂,就引导他们去工信部和各地通信管理局去申请合法资质! 如果你的领导不给你合法VPN,就说明你的工作没必要访问境外网站懂了吗?
The editors of the People’s Daily and the Global Times are legally visiting overseas websites because they use qualified VPNs! If you don’t have a qualified VPN, you can’t! As an individual, if you are in a enterprise that require such services like the People’s Daily, Global Times, Internet companies, and major research institutes, etc., you can ask your manger to apply for qualified VPN! If your leader does not give you a legitimate VPN, it means that your work does not need to visit the such overseas websites.
所以还有人有疑问吗?大家应该都认同了吧,我们就是要打击那些违法VPN!那些没有资质的VPN, SS, V2RAY, VPS之类的都该被举报!举报给我国的网信办网警!!
Who are we? We jvbao group (jvbao举报) is a group of advocators that calls for reporting illegal VPNs to internet police!!
So is there anyone still having questions? Everyone should agree, we must crack down on those illegal VPN! Those unqualified VPNs, SS, V2RAY, VPS and the like should be reported!
欢迎大家了解加入我们举报违法翻墙的举报大军!推特或搜索jvbaoillegal 了解最新举报动态!!就像所有自发的开源项目一样,如有意向可以赞助我们!!
赞助到比特币账号:1FMb7HRMug6eYJeXX7XyYHYZDtiUGbd2bL
Everyone is welcome to join us and report those illegal contents and VPNs! Search jvbaoillegal on Twitter.com to learn more about us! If you are interested, you can sponsor us!!
Bitcoin account: 1FMb7HRMug6eYJeXX7XyYHYZDtiUGbd2bL
submitted by jvbaoadmin to jvbao [link] [comments]

Big time article in Wall Street journal today.

WSJ has a glowing interview/article with Balaji Srinivasan about the future of Bitcoin. Nothing about a bubble, nothing about frauds or scams. This is a tacit endorsement by the best financial paper in the world.
The paper describes bitcoin and the blockchain in general as the "internet of money" and describes how it is revolutionizing everything in finance. It goes on to describe how China is trying to manipulate bitcoin in order to facilitate their own currency tied to the renminbi, or to capture bitcoin for themselves. WSJ explains how china created the great firewall shortly after the internet was invented, and now they're trying to do the same with blockchains and crypto... China isn't banning bitcoin. They plan on regulating it themselves.
This is the most positive sign I have seen around bitcoin in a long time. Wall Street journal putting out a positive article about BTC is a huge progress.
submitted by Turbodiesel67 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My dad's investment club have all emailed me now on how to setup accounts after I sent them this

The bitcoin network is also by no means old, Segwit is about to be released which doubles network capacity, and the Lightning and Thunder networks which are in the pipeline are going to allow for literally billions of off-chain transactions per second.
I also agree with you that the Global Banking Cartel hates decentralisation. The banking cartel’s main competitive advantage has been the control of money supply. Presidents have supposedly lost their lives over this e.g. Abraham Lincoln and JFK. It goes as far back as the Rothschild’s with the statement “As long as I control the nation’s money supply, I care not who makes its laws”. All central banks in the world are private owned.
Where I disagree with you is the fact that they can’t ban bitcoin. It is exactly the same as the torrent file sharing network, every time governments attack it more nodes in the network keep popping up. My view is that deep down governments like Bitcoin, as the world has been run by bankers and not governments (and at times the difference between the two is a bit blurred). Money creation is finally being taken out of the baking cartels hands. I think that governments would have banned bitcoin now if they wanted to, they would control the onramps of fiat currency into digital currency by banning apps in the app store etc. It is also a catch 22 for them, they can’t ban the bitcoin protocol as it transcends all firewalls, it is completely immune. All they can try and do is hamper it, and that causes the Streisand Effect.
There is also a bigger issue at hand here in that all fiat currencies land up becoming completely worthless. When America went off the gold standard in the early 1970’s, Kissenger and Nixon made every country in the world buy oil in USD which created demand for the USD and any country that tried to renegade, they bombed. Gadaffi, Sadam, and now Assad. This created the petrodollar, which is now dying, as China is buying oil from all these countries in any currency except the USD (China just signed a USD400bn bilateral oil agreement with Russia to bypass the US). China is also dumping tons of American debt, which was being bought up by an unknown entity in Belguim at first, and now an entity in the Caymen Islands (everything points to the banking cartel buying it, because no one wants a vast stack of US debt anymore).
There is compelling evidence that the UK and the US have sold all their gold to China. Fort Knox could well be empty, and it is common knowledge that the Comex Vaults are empty. The biggest Ponzi scheme is that for every ounce of gold in the Comex vault (main gold vault), there are over 300 owners that are trading that same ounce in the gold market in the form of a worthless paper contract.
When the USD collapses, they can’t issue another fiat currency as it would be exactly the same as what Zim did last month, it is massively inflationary to the point of finding yourself exactly where you started virtually immediately. They also can’t offer a gold backed currency because there is no gold. It is conspiracy theorist, but it makes sense (Gordon Brown sold most of the UK’s gold).
My personal belief is that that it is a stroke of genius from the US government:
  1. Sell all your gold to China
  2. When the USD slowly collapses everyone would flood to bitcoin to preserve their wealth as they can’t use gold.
  3. The US government debt which is denominated in the USD would be inflated away.
  4. The US would then accept taxes and pay civil servants in digital currency, and they have not defaulted on their debt just let it inflate away.
  5. Keep gold as a “Barbarous Relic” as they call it.
There is a great series of you tube videos to watch by a guy called Mike Maloney (Dad and Norm you must also watch them) which is very important to watch right now. It is called the “Hidden secrets of Money”: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mike+maloney+hidden+secrets+of+money
He states that we are going to see the biggest wealth transfer ever before 2020.
Another great website to follow is Zerohedge. It does sound a bit conspiracy theorist, but it is not in main stream media’s interest to report on this as it would cause panic.
I saw the start of the bank runs here in the UK in 2007 with Northern Rock and people queuing outside the bank exactly like the great depression, the banks were bailed out by the government, and the can was just kicked down the road and the problems never fixed. South Africa never saw this because China piled in with USD35trn worth of debt to prop up the world economy and especially South Africa. Now all governments have passed a law stating that there are “Bail-Ins”, which means when the bank fails they first go for customer’s deposits to prop the bank up. It has already happened in Austria, Cyprus and Portugal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc6Hp_Zq3rU
I remember the first day working at HSBC and was completely shocked to see that they were still using 1970’s legacy systems, and I immediately thought that this has to change, and then I saw the network diagram that consisted of over 600 systems all connected with “sticky tape”. I thought how on earth is this going to be replaced with modern technology? I now know that you have to pretty much start afresh and personally feel that blockchain technology and specifically THE blockchain will be the solution.
Time will tell. I feel that the next 5 years are going to be the most important in our life time, and it’s going to affect everyone globally.
submitted by 800409523 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

According to the WSJ, regulators have decided on a "comprehensive ban on channels for the buying or selling of the virtual currency in China"

Here is the link to the original WSJ article.
Full Article: (Thanks knight222)
BEIJING—Chinese authorities are moving toward a broad clampdown on bitcoin trading, testing the resilience of the virtual currency as well as the idea its decentralized nature protects it from government interference. Regulators have decided on a comprehensive ban on channels for the buying or selling of the virtual currency in China that goes beyond plans to shut commercial bitcoin exchanges, according to people familiar with the matter.
Officials communicated the message to several industry executives at a closed-door meeting in Beijing on Friday, according to people who were at the meeting. Until last week, many entrepreneurs in China’s bitcoin circles had thought authorities might shut down only commercial trading activity while tolerating peer-to-peer, or over-the-counter, bitcoin platforms, which enable buyers and sellers to find each other and trade directly.
The Chinese plan represents some of the most draconian measures any government has taken to control bitcoin, created by an anonymous programmer nearly a decade ago as an alternative to official currencies, and word of it sent another wave of anxiety through the Chinese bitcoin community. China has digitized its financial sector faster than any other nation. Authorities continue to support the trend, though their public comments also suggest concern bitcoin could weaken official control of the country’s money supply. The crackdown on the bitcoin ecosystem represents Beijing’s possibly biggest effort so far to limit expansion of a system to rival the yuan. In a previous crackdown, in 2009, the central bank banned the use of tokens valued at billions of dollars created in China’s massive online-gaming networks for real-world purchases.
Bit of Uncertainty China’s clampdown on bitcoin has hurt global prices and domestic trading volumes; for now the country remains a major center for bitcoin mining.
[picture] Mining in 2017* Share by country Daily trading Share by currency Bitcoin price $5,000 100 % Others Others China Yen 35.3% 64.7% Euro 4,000 75 3,000 50 Dollar 2,000 25 Yuan 1,000 0 A J S ’17 2016 *As of Aug. 31 Sources: coindesk (price); bitcoinity.org (trading volume, mining)
A quasiregulatory body called the National Internet Finance Association of China (NIFA) warned investors about virtual currency trading in a statement last week and said that bitcoin platforms lack “legal basis” to operate in the country.
A goal of China’s monetary regulation is to ensure that “the source and destination of every piece of money can be tracked,” Li Lihui, a NIFA official told a technology conference in Shanghai on Friday. A lack of clarity from regulators has fueled worries about how far the government will go. One uncertainty, for example, is whether the ban will affect bitcoin deals made over social-messaging apps such as WeChat . People in the industry say a wave of bitcoin users in recent days migrated from WeChat to the encrypted messaging service Telegram.
A broader clampdown will likely include blocking mainland access to websites of foreign bitcoin exchanges such as Coinbase in the U.S. and Bitfinex in Hong Kong, say people familiar with the matter. Last weekend, the largest domestic bitcoin exchanges—BTCC, Huobi and OKCoin—all said they would halt trading services in the coming weeks, sending prices of bitcoin on the global market tumbling. Bitcoin traded at $3,947 apiece on Monday evening in Beijing, roughly 26% off its high of $4,960.72 on Sept. 1. Industry advocates hail bitcoin for allowing users to transact with each other without the involvement of a central authority. In reality, users access the market for virtual currencies via services and businesses that are centralized in real locations and therefore are susceptible to third parties. Any attempt by China to interfere broadly in the bitcoin network would test that notion further.
On the flip side, if bitcoin does prove resilient, China could be shutting itself out of a growing global market. As recently as last year, China accounted for the bulk of global bitcoin trading activity, but its share has dropped dramatically since the government started attempting to cool the market. China now accounts for less than 15% of bitcoin trading volume.
Blocking overseas exchange sites would add them to a long list of websites Beijing considers too sensitive, including Google and Facebook.
Chinese authorities haven’t made public their stance on virtual currency trading. The People’s Bank of China and the Ministry of Internet and Information Technology didn’t respond to requests for comment on bitcoin measures.
A document passed around at Friday’s meeting and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal instructs Beijing-based exchanges to unwind their operations and provide information on bank accounts used for clients’ deposits by Wednesday.
While China’s sway in bitcoin trading volumes has faded, the country remains a major creator of new bitcoin through a process called mining. Chinese bitcoin miners operate a vast collection of computers for the purpose in remote areas like northwestern Xinjiang, where they can access electricity for cheap. Until now, Chinese miners considered themselves immune from Beijing’s evolving stance on bitcoin trading. One entrepreneur said miners are now worried about authorities moving to limit their operations. “Using VPNs as a workaround will be difficult,” he said, referring to virtual private networks that allow users to circumvent China’s so-called Great Firewall.
Chinese miners loom large in the global bitcoin mining network, also serving an important role in the upkeep of the bitcoin ledger. Potential interference in how they connect to and use the internet could disrupt, at least temporarily, both the creation of new bitcoin and the speed at which global bitcoin transactions are confirmed, say people in the industry. The stepped-up tightening by regulators comes as China’s top leaders have been vocal about battling money laundering, in advance of an important leadership transition this fall. Last week, China’s State Council released guidelines aimed at better coordination between regulators to address the transfer of capital for illicit purposes.
—James T. Areddy in Shanghai and Liyan Qi in Beijing contributed to this article.
submitted by ILikeGreenit to btc [link] [comments]

Questions about technical / political / economic / "game theory" aspects of BU & ViaBTC. (1) With BU, can non-mining (full) nodes influence blocksize? (2) Should ViaBTC open-source their private relay network software? (3) Which is more anti-fragile: a ViaBTC/BU future, or a Core/SegWit future?

Some of these issues were raised briefly in today's AMA with Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC:
Mining vs non-mining nodes
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ddiqw/im_haipo_yang_founder_and_ceo_of_viabtc_ask_me/da3wszm/
What do you think of the influence of non-mining node operators under Bitcoin Unlimited's model for voting on maximum block size? Do you think that non-mining nodes signaling for a certain size would truly motivate miners to not exceed that size?
~ u/ChronosCrypto (Bitcoin Vlogger)
I believe that with the Bitcoin Unlimited method, the influence of non-mining nodes on the block size is very limited.
~ u/ViaBTC
ViaBTC's closed-source relay network
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ddiqw/im_haipo_yang_founder_and_ceo_of_viabtc_ask_me/da3uvpv/
Are you using the Bitcoin FIBRE relay network bitcoinfibre.org?
~ u/core_negotiator (Note: This person is not a "Core negotiator". There is no such thing.)
No, we use our own system [which was] developed by myself. It is much better.
~ u/ViaBTC
[Have you] Thought about having that incorporated into BU (even giving access to BU miners)? I ask because looking at some of your pool's first-job times, it looks your system is quite impressive and it'd be a massive slap in the face for core's RN et al
~ u/pekatete
I am very happy that other pool would like join our network.
~ u/ViaBTC
Why don't you open source it to help improve the network?
~ u/messiano84
haha so when will you open source it?
~ u/yeh-nah-yeh
Should we be concerned that ViaBTC will have a lot of hashing power - and they will be using a private, close-source relay network?
There is probably a lot of discussion we could have on this topic.
I like ViaBTC - but it seems strange that he did not address this point very much in his AMA.
Are we going to have to "trust ViaBTC" now and "trust" their closed-source private relay network software?
This seems like this would be a point of centralization / vulnerability in the network - where ViaBTC could abuse his power, or other players could attack ViaBTC, and harm Bitcoin itself.
How does BU "signaling" work - in a non-mining (fully-validating) node, vs a mining node.
One question quoted above from the AMA was:
Do you think that non-mining nodes signaling for a certain size would truly motivate miners to not exceed that size?
I understand there are multiple parameters involved in "signaling":
  • EB = excessive blocksize
  • AD = acceptance depth
(Are there other parameters too? I can't remember.)
Here is a Medium post by ViaBTC where he proposes some strategies for setting these parameters, in order to safely hard fork to bigger blocks with BU:
Miner Guide: How to Safely Hard Fork to Bitcoin Unlimited
https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/miner-guide-how-to-safely-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-unlimited-8ac1570dc1a8#.akijaiba7
Could we have some more discussion on how "signaling for" blocksizes works - under various possible future scenarios (optimistic / pessimistic... likely / unlikely / black-swan)?
There are various future scenarios (after the network has eventually / presumably forked from Core to BU) where people could use BU's parameters to realize certain results on the network.
(1) What are some of those future scenarios?
  • economic / political / technical events which could abruptly affect Bitcoin network traffic
    • already: Chinese currency (Yuan) dropping against US currency (dollar)
    • already: India demonetizing Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes
    • likely: major ETF getting approved in the US (Winklevoss or other)
    • possible: additional spam attacks on the Bitcoin network
    • ...from white hats (testing the system; pointing out vulnerabilities; making a statement)
    • ...from black hats (another coin; a bot-net; pro-Core and/or anti-BU users; state / corporate actors; Mircea Popescu?)
    • black swan: some government does something weird & unexpected impacting financial markets and/or Bitcoin
    • ... Trump administration : some high-level person (who's actually just an alt-right blogger that Trump hired to run some major governnent department) makes some crazy pronouncement / ruling about the internet / about the markets (FCC eliminates network neutrality? T-Bill sale fails?)
    • ... Fed : rate hike? more helicopter money?
    • ... Europe : Deutsche Bank collapses? Merkel / ECB decides to rescue / not rescue them? bail-ins?
    • ... China : China bans Bitcoin again? releases their own crypto? imposes new capital controls? Bitcoin price goes moon and CNY crashes so Chinese govt imposes emergency ban on all traffic across Great Firewall - cutting off 80% of mining from the West?
    • ... Russian hackers? some 400 pound guy on his bed? 4chan? whoever took down a big chunk of the DNS a few weeks ago?
(2) What are some possible (typical, atypical... benevolent, malicious... altruistic, selfish... defensive, proactive... pessimistic, optimistic ) BU parameter-setting strategies which people might adopt in those scenarios?
  • Which software is more safe / more dangerous... more anti-fragile / more fragile in the above scenarios?
    • Core/SegWit 1-1.7M blocksize (assuming wallet / exchange software gets upgraded for SegWit)?
    • users "signaling for" blocksize on the network using parameters in Bitcoin Unlimited?
(3) Can we start putting together a comprehensive strategic "threat (and opportunity) assessment" on those various possible future scenarios / strategies - ranking various threats (and opportunities) in terms of impact as well as probability?
  • How would the network react to threats/opportunities using BU (with most mining still concentrated in China, and maybe also concetrated on ViaBTC's private closed-source relay network)?
  • How would the network react to threats/opportunities using Core/SegWit?
(4) A lot of the discussion about BU is among miners - mostly in China - and maybe later many miners will be using the ViaBTC pool - which is also offering a cloud mining option... so perhaps it is normal & expected that most of the discussion about BU parameters revolves around miners.
  • What about non-mining (fully-validating) nodes in a BU world?
  • What about SPV clients and servers in a BU world?
  • Do non-mining (fully-validating) nodes also have some role to play in helping to set the blocksize, and helping to secure and grow the network, based on setting BU parameters? Or with BU, only the miners decide?
  • Can non-mining (fully-validating) nodes prevent blocks from getting too big?
  • How would SPV clients and servers work in a BU world? Can they actively participate in helping to decide blocksize?
(5) Does BU give miners "all the power" - and so blocksize goes to 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB - and then some users from low-bandwidth geographic regions can no longer run full nodes at home?
(6) If we have a period of 1-2 weeks where "bigger blocks" get mined (eg, 2 MB, or 4 MB), and then we decide we don't like it, can everyone "signal for" smaller blocks after a couple of weeks of bigger blocks? Can the chain reverts to a smaller blocksize, after a brief, one-week "bulge" of bigger blocks?
(7) If we have an isolated incident where a single very-big block gets appended to the chain & accepted to a sufficient depth (say, an 8 MB block or a 32 MB, that some miner somehow managed get accepted on the chain)
  • Can the chain revert to smaller blocks after an isolated incident of one very-big block?
  • Or are we "stuck" with that bigger blocksize forever, simply because one got mined in the past?
(8) Remember BitPay Adaptive Blocksize? One of the nice things about it was that its consensus-forming mechanism was based on taking a median of what people were signalling - and the median is a more robust statistic (harder to fake/sybil?).
Can any ideas from BitPay Adaptive Blocksize (eg, using the median) be incorporated into Bitcoin Unlimited?
These are just some initial questions.
Other people probably have many more.
Hopefully we can have some good discussion and analysis, so we can keep the network safe & growing.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

The /r/btc China Dispatch: Episode 2 - Why Doesn’t China Ban Bitcoin?

First of all a big thanks to everyone who responded so positively to yesterday’s first edition of the /btc China Dispatch. If this enthusiasm keeps up, I will continue to produce translations on at least a weekly basis as long as there is interest, and the current plan is to inaugurate this series with one translation per day for the next week.
For those of you who missed it, you can check out the first episode regarding China’s reaction to Mike Hearn’s recent pessimistic essay here. In today’s episode we take a look at a discussion that occurred today on the Bikeji forums (bikeji.com) regarding a topic that has been a perennial subject of discussion in the English-speaking bitcoin world: why China, or any government for that matter, doesn’t just ban bitcoin?
Note that unlike last time I’ve (loosely) translated or transliterated all user names to make the discussion easier to follow.
[OP]
Subject: Why Doesn’t The Chinese Government Ban Bitcoin?
Posted by Keeper_of_Crypto_Tower
You might say that the birth of bitcoin has changed the game for national finance / monetary policy at a fundamental level. Isn’t it kind of interesting that a currency that is not controlled by the government is able to stay in circulation?
[Response 1]
Posted by Spinach
Bwahahaha! [derisive laughter]
[Response 2]
Posted by Yushu
Even the party oligarchs are now talking about governing the country under the rule of law. Under what law, exactly, would it be possible to ban bitcoin?
[Response 3]
Posted by LaibitePool_Jiang_Zhuoer
Because it’s legal in Beacon Country [translator’s note: tounge-in-cheek slang for “the USA.” Here, the term “beacon” is sarcastically borrowed from a speech made by Bush Sr. who referred to the USA as a “beacon” for democracy in the early 90s] and Europe. The party oligarchs won’t ban it because under the circumstances it would make them lose face.
Also, the experience of Hairy Bear Country [translator’s note: humorous slang for “Russia.” Presumably originates from the fact that Russia is famous for polar bears.] shows that a ban of bitcoin is completely ineffective:
Russia banned bitcoin trading in Feburary 2014 while the ruble was undergoing a period of severe inflation (Xinhua News: “Russia Joins the Ranks of Countries Banning Bitcoin”). However, it is obvious based on trading volume for LocalBitcoins.com (a local bitcoin matching and trading service) in Russia that the ban was for all intents and purposes completely meaningless.
[Inline Image: LocalBitcoins Voulme Chart (Russia)]
Therefore all things considered the party oligarchs have gone with a realtively smart strategy: nominal legality + de facto tight control, so bitcoin exists but only on a small scale. If bitcoin ever really started to take off they could at any time start strictly enforcing a “Five Ministries Notice” and directly cut bitcoin off from the financial system for a peridod of time. They would definitely be able to drag it out for a period of time and would only need to drag it out for the time the current administration is power.
You can refer to section 1.1 of https://www.zhihu.com/question/22076666/answe69638270 to learn more about definitions of bitcoin under the law and understand how bitcoin is defined under the law in various countries.
[Response 4]
Posted by Shichenxi
Because:
* Bitcoin is deflationary and is bad for economic development
* There are too few bitcoins: only 21 million. They are nothing but a toy for geeks and cannot function as a serious currency
* The price is super volatile. The price would have to be stable before it could become a currency
Therefore bitcoin is not a currency and has no chance of becoming a currency.
At most bitcoin is nothing more than a collectible item similar to stamps (according to Zhou Xiaochuan [translator’s note: Zhou Xiaochuan is the Governor of the People’s Bank of China])
Wouldn’t you all agree?
[Response 5]
Posted by Trueiron
@ Laibite_Pool_Jiang_Zhuoer This is a great educational post. It would be great if we could keep this to refer back to for educational purposes. Strongly support re-posting this to the Bikeji main page!
[Response 6]
Posted by xraysun
[Image of a arrogant looking cat wearing an emporer’s cap. The text reads “I love it that you can’t stand the look of me but can’t get rid of me”]
[Response 7]
Posted by hippies
Nobody really gives a shit about bitcoin… in any case it’s just a small pipeline and some of the party oligarchs are able to use this small pipeline to move their wealth. If bitcoin were ever to seriously affect the interests of the party oligarchs then they could mount a 51% attack as easily as building a few kilometers of subway line. They’ve got the nukes and if they can set off one they can set off another one. Things like the project headed by Fang Binxing [translator’s note: Fang Binxing is the mastermind behind the Great Firewall of China] are what’s most important.
[Response 8]
Posted by mkz899
Because you already lost all of your bitcoins, so what’s the point of the government banning them? [Translator’s note: Keeper_of_Crypto_Tower recently posted elsewhere on the same forum that he lost 2,000 BTC that he mined in ’09 due to his dad throwing out his old computer from highschool... a likely story]
[Response 9]
Posted by Keeper_of_Crypto_Tower
@mkz899 Fuck you…
Hope this thread was as interesting as the last one. Any and all feedback appreciated!
submitted by KoKansei to btc [link] [comments]

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.

Centralization is a double-edged sword.
So far, centralization (and intertia, and laziness, and caution) has been favoring Blockstream.
But if and when a congestion crisis comes, then the tide is gonna turn pretty quickly - and Blockstream's monopoly in terms of "code running on the network" is gonna evaporate quicker than anyone expected.
How will this happen?
Like this:
Bitcoin is going to go into a crisis - not just the current agonizing slow-motion swamp of centralized fascist governance, but a real-time honking red alert involving a clogged-up network, with people freaking out screaming from the rooftops that millions of dollars in transactions are in limbo due to some pointless fucked-up 1 MB "blocksize limit".
And at that point, people are going to get rid of the damn piece of broken cripple-code, immediately.
End of story.
Slow to crumble, fast to collapse
Up till now, the Bitcoin governance crisis has been like slowly sinking into a swamp of quicksand.
But once a real-time congestion crisis actually hits (and online forums become dominated by posts screaming "my transaction is stuck in limbo!!!"), then all the previous bullshit and bloviating from economic idiots about "fee markets" and "soft hard forks" or whatever other nonsense will be instantly forgotten.
And at that point, there will be only 2 things that can happen:
You don't need Blockstream - they need you
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch.
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
Eventually, we are going to remember what vote-with-your-CPU consensus looks like
Remember all those hours you wasted on reddit?
Remember all that time you wasted in some hidden downvoted sub-thread debating with some snarky little toxic troll who'd wandered over from a censored Milgram experiment forum full of brainwashed circlejerkers and foot-stomping fascists whose only adrenaline rush and power trip in life had evidently been when they would run around bloviating gibberish like "fee markets!" or "Austrian!" to the self-selected bunch of ignorant submissive sycophants who hadn't been banned from r\bitcoin yet?
Well, when the real crisis hits, all that trivial online drama isn't going to matter any more.
When the inevitable congestion crisis finally comes, it's only going to take a couple of mining pools plus a couple of exchanges to make a simple life-or-death business decision to un-install Blockstream's artificially crippled code and instead install code that has actually been upgraded to deal with the reality of mining and the marketplace - and then we're all going to see what actual vote-with-your-CPU consensus really looks like (instead of vote-with-your-sockpuppet pseudo-consensus on Reddit).
This upgraded code could be Classic, or Unlimited, or even a modded version Core - it doesn't really matter.
Code is code and money is money, and when push comes to shove, investors and miners aren't going to give a damn what some overpaid economic idiot from Blockstream said at some meeting in Hong Kong once, or what some fascist poisonous astroturfing shill-bot posted a million times on Reddit.
Things usually move slow in Bitcoin-land - except when they move fast
For an example of how fast the tide can turn, just look at a couple of major events from the past two days:
(1) Coinbase is suddenly saying that:
Of course the good devs are flocking to Ethereum now.
Any smart dev can see from a mile away that it would be suicide to try to contribute to Core/Blockstream - Blockstream don't want any new coders or new ideas, they are insular and insecure and they feel downright threatened by new coders with fresh ideas.
They've shown this over and over again, eg:
(2) AntPool is suddenly throwing down the gauntlet, saying they won't do SegWit unless and until they get a hard fork first.
AntPool represents a pretty big chunk of hashrate - so all it's gonna take is another big chunk of hashrate to make the same practical business decision as AntPool (to serve Bitcoin users, instead of serving Blockstream) - and boom! - Blockstream loses their stranglehold on the miners.
Devs don't like dicatorships
Blockstream is too jack-booted lock-step to ever attract any more new dev talent.
This is because good devs are very independent-minded: they can smell a dicatorial organization from a mile away, and so no good dev in their right mind (who might actually have some interesting new ideas that could help Bitcoin) would ever go near Blockstream and its toxic group-think culture.
And so Blockstream will just continue to stagnate under Gregory Maxwell's oppressive "leadership":
Blockstream has backed themselves into a corner
At this point, people are starting to realize that Blockstream is a led by desperate and incompetent dead-enders.
(There are some great coders over there such as Pieter Wuille - and Greg Maxwell is also a great Bitcoin coder, but he is toxic as a "leader".)
Blockstream can't do capacity planning, they can't do threat assessment, they can't innovate, they can't prioritize, and they can't communicate.
In the end, they're only destroying themselves - by censoring debate, and ostracizing existing innovators (eg, Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen) - and scaring away potential new innovators.
Remember, Blockstream != Bitcoin
It's important to remember that Blockstream cannot destroy Bitcoin - any more than Mt Gox could.
Once Blockstream is thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Bitcoin community and the media, as "the company that almost strangled the Bitcoin network by trying to force blocks to be smaller than the average web page" - it's gonna be time for honey-badger jokes all over again.
Blockstream's gargantuan conflicts-of-interest will be their downfall
Blockstream is funded by insurance giant AXA - a company whose CEO is the head of the friggin' Bilderberg Group. (He's scheduled to move from CEO of AXA to CEO of HSBC soon. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.)
AXA doesn't even want cryptocurrency to succeed anyways, because half of the 1 trillion dollars of so-called "assets" on their fraudulent balance sheet is actually nothing more than toxic debt-backed worthless derivatives garbage. (AXA has more derivatives than any other insurance company.)
In other words, AXA's balance sheet will be exposed as worthless and the company will become insolvent (just like Lehman Brothers and AIG did in 2008) once real money like Bitcoin actually becomes dominant in the world economy - which will "uber" and knock down the whole teetering $1.2 quadrillion derivatives casino.
Hmm... AIG... a giant insurance group whose alleged "assets" turned out to be just a worthless pile of toxic debt-backed derivatives on the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat, AIG who triggered the 2008 financial near-meltdown... Who does AIG remind me of... Oh yeah AXA... So let's put AXA in charge of paying for Bitcoin development! What could possibly go wrong?!?
Blockstream's owners HATE Bitcoin
Never forget:
This is the probably the most gigantic CONFLICT OF INTEREST in the history of economics. And it's something to think about, as we sit here wondering for years why Blockstream is not only failing to scale Bitcoin - but it's also actively trying to SABOTAGE anyone ELSE who tries to scale Bitcoin as well.
So, be patient - and optimistic
Viewed from one perspective, the fact that this blocksize battle has dragged on for years can be very depressing.
But, viewed from another perspective, the fact that it's still going on is positive - because, for example, nobody really dares to say anymore that "blocks should be 1 MB" - since repeated studies have shown that the current hardware and infrastructure could easily handle 3-4 MB blocks, and Core/Blockstream's own precious SegWit soft-fork is going to need 3-4 MB blocks anyways.
Plus, the only "strengths" that Blockstream had on its side actually turn out to be pretty weak upon closer scrutiny (money from investors like AXA who hate cryptocurrency, censorship from domain squatters who only know how to destroy communities, snark from sockpuppets who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag on uncensored forums).
In fact, if you were part of Blockstream, you'd be pretty demoralized that a rag-tag bunch of big-blocks supporters has been chipping away at you for the past few years, creating new forums, creating new coins, creating new products and services, exposing the economic ignorance of small-block dead-enders - and all the while, Blockstream hasn't been able to deliver on any of its so-called scaling roadmap.
If it hadn't been for a few historical accidents (cheap energy behind the Great Firewall of China, plus the other "linguistic" firewall that has prevented many people in the Chinese-speaking community from seeing how much of the community actually rejects Blockstream, plus the other accidental fact that bigger blocks involve generalizing Bitcoin, which mathematically happens to require a hard fork), then Blockstream would not have been able to control Bitcoin development as long as it has.
Yeah, they have done routine maintenance stuff and efficiency upgrades, like rewriting libsecp256k, which is great, and much appreciated - and Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork) - but the network also needs some simple, safe scaling.
And the network is going to get simple, safe scaling - whenever it decides that it really, really wants it.
And there's nothing that Blockstream can do to block that.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

According to the WSJ, regulators have decided on a "comprehensive ban on channels for the buying or selling of the virtual currency in China"

Here is the link to the WSJ article.
Full Article: BEIJING—Chinese authorities are moving toward a broad clampdown on bitcoin trading, testing the resilience of the virtual currency as well as the idea its decentralized nature protects it from government interference. Regulators have decided on a comprehensive ban on channels for the buying or selling of the virtual currency in China that goes beyond plans to shut commercial bitcoin exchanges, according to people familiar with the matter.
Officials communicated the message to several industry executives at a closed-door meeting in Beijing on Friday, according to people who were at the meeting. Until last week, many entrepreneurs in China’s bitcoin circles had thought authorities might shut down only commercial trading activity while tolerating peer-to-peer, or over-the-counter, bitcoin platforms, which enable buyers and sellers to find each other and trade directly.
The Chinese plan represents some of the most draconian measures any government has taken to control bitcoin, created by an anonymous programmer nearly a decade ago as an alternative to official currencies, and word of it sent another wave of anxiety through the Chinese bitcoin community. China has digitized its financial sector faster than any other nation. Authorities continue to support the trend, though their public comments also suggest concern bitcoin could weaken official control of the country’s money supply. The crackdown on the bitcoin ecosystem represents Beijing’s possibly biggest effort so far to limit expansion of a system to rival the yuan. In a previous crackdown, in 2009, the central bank banned the use of tokens valued at billions of dollars created in China’s massive online-gaming networks for real-world purchases.
Bit of Uncertainty China’s clampdown on bitcoin has hurt global prices and domestic trading volumes; for now the country remains a major center for bitcoin mining.
[picture] Mining in 2017* Share by country Daily trading Share by currency Bitcoin price $5,000 100 % Others Others China Yen 35.3% 64.7% Euro 4,000 75 3,000 50 Dollar 2,000 25 Yuan 1,000 0 A J S ’17 2016 *As of Aug. 31 Sources: coindesk (price); bitcoinity.org (trading volume, mining)
A quasiregulatory body called the National Internet Finance Association of China (NIFA) warned investors about virtual currency trading in a statement last week and said that bitcoin platforms lack “legal basis” to operate in the country.
A goal of China’s monetary regulation is to ensure that “the source and destination of every piece of money can be tracked,” Li Lihui, a NIFA official told a technology conference in Shanghai on Friday. A lack of clarity from regulators has fueled worries about how far the government will go. One uncertainty, for example, is whether the ban will affect bitcoin deals made over social-messaging apps such as WeChat . People in the industry say a wave of bitcoin users in recent days migrated from WeChat to the encrypted messaging service Telegram.
A broader clampdown will likely include blocking mainland access to websites of foreign bitcoin exchanges such as Coinbase in the U.S. and Bitfinex in Hong Kong, say people familiar with the matter. Last weekend, the largest domestic bitcoin exchanges—BTCC, Huobi and OKCoin—all said they would halt trading services in the coming weeks, sending prices of bitcoin on the global market tumbling. Bitcoin traded at $3,947 apiece on Monday evening in Beijing, roughly 26% off its high of $4,960.72 on Sept. 1. Industry advocates hail bitcoin for allowing users to transact with each other without the involvement of a central authority. In reality, users access the market for virtual currencies via services and businesses that are centralized in real locations and therefore are susceptible to third parties. Any attempt by China to interfere broadly in the bitcoin network would test that notion further.
On the flip side, if bitcoin does prove resilient, China could be shutting itself out of a growing global market. As recently as last year, China accounted for the bulk of global bitcoin trading activity, but its share has dropped dramatically since the government started attempting to cool the market. China now accounts for less than 15% of bitcoin trading volume.
Blocking overseas exchange sites would add them to a long list of websites Beijing considers too sensitive, including Google and Facebook.
Chinese authorities haven’t made public their stance on virtual currency trading. The People’s Bank of China and the Ministry of Internet and Information Technology didn’t respond to requests for comment on bitcoin measures.
A document passed around at Friday’s meeting and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal instructs Beijing-based exchanges to unwind their operations and provide information on bank accounts used for clients’ deposits by Wednesday.
While China’s sway in bitcoin trading volumes has faded, the country remains a major creator of new bitcoin through a process called mining. Chinese bitcoin miners operate a vast collection of computers for the purpose in remote areas like northwestern Xinjiang, where they can access electricity for cheap. Until now, Chinese miners considered themselves immune from Beijing’s evolving stance on bitcoin trading. One entrepreneur said miners are now worried about authorities moving to limit their operations. “Using VPNs as a workaround will be difficult,” he said, referring to virtual private networks that allow users to circumvent China’s so-called Great Firewall.
Chinese miners loom large in the global bitcoin mining network, also serving an important role in the upkeep of the bitcoin ledger. Potential interference in how they connect to and use the internet could disrupt, at least temporarily, both the creation of new bitcoin and the speed at which global bitcoin transactions are confirmed, say people in the industry. The stepped-up tightening by regulators comes as China’s top leaders have been vocal about battling money laundering, in advance of an important leadership transition this fall. Last week, China’s State Council released guidelines aimed at better coordination between regulators to address the transfer of capital for illicit purposes.
—James T. Areddy in Shanghai and Liyan Qi in Beijing contributed to this article. (edit: Added article text/formatting)
submitted by ILikeGreenit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Sorry folks, I honestly believe Monero on Binance is a non-starter, and they'll never re-enable it. Details inside.

Monero is essentially the only truly private and anonymous cryptocurrency when used properly [that you can trust is actually private].
Binance is a Chinese company and China has ridiculously strict fiscal controls on its citizens & businesses (you can't move money out of the country without government approval, for example). A few months ago they cracked down on the crypto exchanges and people were speculating they were banning bitcoin. They didn't ban it, but they wanted to make sure the exchanges were following Chinese law. Bitcoin is allowed because they can track it and observe it. They can also control it to an extent given that the majority of the mining hashrate rests behind China's great firewall. Monero, on the other hand, allows them to circumvent all of China's fiscal regulations and controls, and do so anonymously. It would allow anyone, from Chinese peasant farmers to their billion dollar businessmen to do whatever they wanted with their money without government approval or oversight. This is a huge no-no. China isn't having any of that nonsense.
Hence, the real reason why Monero and Binance are having problems. I will no longer use this exchange because I don't want to support that kind of business (or politics, oppression, whatever the Chinese communist party are in the mood for that day). People seem to forget... While China has become slightly more capitalistic these past 20 years, it's still one of the most authoritarian governments on the planet.
submitted by QnA to binance [link] [comments]

BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen on medium.com argues *against* a "simplistic plan" for scaling Bitcoin with "popular support" among "people who don't know any better" and want a "simple fix". He favors "people doing actual development who aren’t particularly good at talking". Here's why he's wrong.

TL;DR:
https://medium.com/@bramcohen/whiny-ragequitting-cab164b1e88#.3svog9gfg
Sorry Bram, but part of "real engineering work" often involves actually interacting with real users to solve their real problems, as quickly and as simply as possible (or as you prefer to dismissively put it in your essay: "people who don’t know any better" who are looking for a "simple fix").
This is why Bitcoin Classic is rapidly gaining consensus among major Bitcoin stakeholders, who are rejecting the needlessly slow & complicated roadmap from Core / Blockstream devs - who, as you yourself admit in your essay, "aren’t particularly good at talking" (or listening, for that matter).
Experience on successful real projects in the real world has shown us (with Satoshi's initial release of Bitcoin being a case in point) that the fastest, simplest and most popular solutions are actually often the best.
In the above essay, Bram Cohen, inventor of BitTorrent, makes the following arguments:
Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik, and Gavin Andresen ... are doing a good job of whipping up popular support ...
They have a simplistic plan which appeals to people who don’t know any better or want to be told that technical problems can be made to magically go away with a simple fix.
On the other side are the people doing actual development, who aren’t particularly good at talking to the press or whipping up support on reddit and have a plan which requires real engineering work moving forwards.
There are several things seriously wrong with the Bram Cohen's central argument above:
(1) The first part of his statement above is obsolete and hence irrelevant.
Mike and Gavin did indeed previously support BIP 101 (smoothly scaling from 8 MB to 8 GB max blocksize by doubling every 2 years for 20 years) - but in the past week, things have changed dramatically, and the community has moved on:
  • Mike is gone, and it's become clear that support for BIP 101 / XT has dried up;
  • Gavin and Jeff support Bitcoin Classic, which is not BIP 101.
So Bram's comparison of Core's current roadmap with a deprecated roadmap (BIP 101) is now irrelevant.
All the buzz is around a recent new competing repo: Bitcoin Classic.
(2) The second part of Bram's statement above is wrong because it is precisely the simplicity and "appealingness" of Bitcoin Classic which are its strengths.
He dismisses those factors as if they were bad things - but they're actually good things.
The main reason for the past year of impasse is that all previously proposed solutions weren't simple and appealing enough to gain any actual consensus (among the actual users themselves - I don't mean among the devs at a single, out-of-touch and ultimately replaceable team: Core / Blockstream).
Bitcoin Classic's only initial change is to do an immediate bump to merely 2 MB - while also providing, long-term, a more democratic, transparent means of governance - based not on Core / Blockstream devs ACKing and NACKing pull-requests on the GitHub repo - but rather on a much more inclusive and deliberative multi-phase process.
The fact of being simple and inclusive (which Bram erroneously dismisses as being "simplistic" and "popular" by which he presumably means "populist") is precisely why Bitcoin Classic has been rapidly gaining consensus among all stakeholders in the Bitcoin community: miners, users, devs and businesses:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40rwoo/block_size_consensus_infographic_consensus_is/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4089aj/im_working_on_a_project_called_bitcoin_classic_to/
Bram can talk all he wants on medium.com about what might have been, and about how his favorite dev team knows better than actual users (who he insultingly dismisses as "people who don't know any better").
But figuring out how to safely and quickly and simply scale Bitcoin (which is the main issue right now) might not be the exclusive province of C/C++ devs who code in isolation all day.
In fact, as we are now seeing, it turns out that there are other stakeholders in the Bitcoin space who might actually have better ideas on how to do this kind of scaling.
So it's wrong (as well as being elitist) for Bram to dismissively insult such stakeholders as "people who don't know any better" - particularly because in many cases, what we're actually talking about here are major companies with annual revenues in the millions of dollars, with qualified dev teams of their own.
To take just one obvious example: look at Coinbase. They were banned from /Bitcoin and bitcoin.org by Theymos for daring to announce that they were testing XT - in order to serve better serve their users under all possible scenarios in the future.
Coinbase, as we know, also happens to be one of the major on-ramps for many new Bitcoin users, since they're a major US-registered financial institution.
And Coinbase also happens to have the technical and engineering expertise to have written their own open-source fully-validating Bitcoin node from scratch based on Ruby and PostgreSQL.
This is kind of Bitcoin stakeholders that Bram is insulting and dismissing when he talks about "people who don't know any better": a company which basically produced a clone of the full-node part of Core. And note that Coinbase wrote this from scratch in different langauges (Ruby and PostgreSQL), instead of inheriting (some would say "hijacking") Satoshi's orignal C/C++ codebase.
So Bram is simply being rude and mean when he dismisses a major company like Coinbase as being merely "people who don't know any better". Bitcoin expertise is not confined to Core / Blockstream devs.
In fact, there is new breed of Bitcoin experts emerging now - people who know more about the challenges Bitcoin faces today (eg, scaling and network topology) rather than the challenges Bitcoin faced in the past (eg, hasing and crypto).
Two names are worth mentioning among this new wave of experts:
  • Dr Peter R. Rizun - who has also joined Bitcoin Classic now - and who has been terribly maligned and censored by Core / Blockstream:
Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been suspended (from all subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4095lb/dr_peter_r_rizun_managing_editor_of_the_first/
  • Cornell researcher Emin Gün Sirer
Miners produce a generic COMMODITY: transactions included in blocks on the chain. If certain miners refuse to produce ENOUGH of this commodity, then they CAN and WILL be REPLACED. (Important reminders from Cornell researcher Emin Gün Sirer)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/411yz7/miners_produce_a_generic_commodity_transactions/
Look, I really like the stuff that Pieter Wuille is doing with SegWit - and I also really like the stuff that Greg Maxwell could contribute with Confidential Transactions (but please just ignore the few posters in this search-link who worry that CT is "dangerous" because quantum computing might come along someday.). (Although I think that any such major upgrades should be done as a hard-fork, which is more explicit and thus safer than a soft-fork).
So there is room for many types of devs in Bitcoin, and there is exciting work to be done long-term.
But Bram's essay is really about scaling now. And Core / Blockstream has not provided any solutions available now, nor have they researched what users really want and need now.
Thus it's understandable that users are gravitating towards a new dev team which can deliver a "simple fix" - in this case, Bitcoin Classic. And that's normal and healthy.
(3) Finally, there's plenty of owners of major multi-million-dollar mining operations who Bram also dismisses as "people who don’t know any better", people who believe in "magic" or a "simple fix".
At the same time, Bram inexplicably praises a bunch of devs who - as he himself admits - "aren't particularly good at talking" or "whipping up support" - while ignoring the fact that it is is precisely this lack of communication skills which got us into this whole mess. Core / Blockstream are screwing up the short-term and long-term project management of Bitcoin, because they have shown that they are totally incapable of coming up with a realistic roadmap which the community could actually support. (They may have their own reasons for the strange way they prioritized their roadmap, but we don't really know - there's lots of theories out there.)
On the other hand, the people behind Bitcoin Classic (not mentioned by Bram here, as he focuses instead on the obsolete strawman of Mike Hearn / BIP 101), have proven themselves to be "particularly good at talking" (and more important: listening) to actual users and major businesses, in order figure out a a safe, reasonable and practical "simple fix" to satisfy users' needs and requirements now.
Specifically, jtoomim (founder of Bitcoin Classic) has done extensive research, interacting with miners all over the world - on both sides of the Great Firewall of China.
As it turns out (and as stated by Gavin, another lead dev on Bitcoin Classic) the Great Firewall of China, and the concentration of so much mining on the "other" side of it, is one of the main obstacles to simple "blocksize-based" scaling solutions.
So Gavin previously experimented with 20 MB blocks, and more recently jtoomim experimented with 2-3 MB - in the field - producing empirical evidence that 2-3 MB blocks are feasible and acceptable to miners now.
This is the very definition of a "simple fix", with massive "support" from the people who matter: the miners themselves.
And this kind of research with users in the field is exactly what Bitcoin needs now - despite the fact that it might not a sexy enough engineering-based solution to satisfy Bram Cohen and the out-of-touch devs at Core / Blockstream, who have proven themselves time and time again to be unable and/or unwilling to do deliver a simple, popular scaling solution.
So by isolating themselves in their bubble of censorship to focus on elegant engineering, and avoiding the messy public forums where open debate actually occurs - and openly scorning their users (Greg Maxwell calling /btc a "cesspool" and more recently supporting Luke-Jr's attempt to sabotage Bitcoin Classic by injecting a poison-pill pull request to change the PoW and kick all miners off the network, Peter Todd releasing RBF over massive protests and recently doing a gray-hat double-spend against major US-registered Bitcoin financial processor Coinbase) - Core / Blockstream have shown themselves to be arrogant and out of touch, and have alienated the Bitcoin community by being willing jeopardize the network as they chant their mantra that "there's no emergency yet".
This is people are rejecting Core / Blockstream's so-called "scaling" roadmap (which unfortunately includes no "simple fix" - ie a minimal blocksize-based solution acceptable to the community - and instead relies on complicated, untested, fancy code such as SegWit and LN - which be might good later but which aren't ready now).
It's too little and too late, too slow and too complicated (and possibly vaporware).
Instead, people want the simpler, faster and field-tested solutions researched and developed by the devs over at the new repo: Bitcoin Classic.
Bram Cohen is needlessly focusing in his essay on what used-to-be and what might-have-been and what could-be-someday.
Meanwhile the researchers and developers at Bitcoin Classic, like Gavin and JToomim, have been focusing on the here-and-now.
In this sense, the Bitcoin Classic researchers and developers are closer to Satoshi, with his preference for practical solutions which work "good enough" to be implemented now, instead of "perfect" solutions which are so complicated that they might never get implemented at all.
Also recall that several major Core / Blockstream devs didn't believe Bitcoin would work:
  • Gregory Maxwell "mathematically proved" that Bitcoin would be "impossible" (ignoring a little thing like "complexity" - which shows that he might not be that well-rounded, since many mathematicians are indeed familiar with "complexity theory", involving termination, NP, and all that fun stuff).
  • Adam Back missed out on being an earlier adopter of Bitcoin even when tipped off by Satoshi (Adam had invented an earlier prototype called HashCash, but in his case he ignored how inflation might work - which shows that he also might not be that well-rounded, since many economists in the real world do indeed know how currency inflation works).
  • Peter Todd is an odd case, focusing on breaking things that aren't broken in order to petulantly prove a point (so he might be good in Testing or Threat Assessment, but he's probably not the kind of guy you want in Project Management).
These are the kinds of people Bram is arguing we should to support - people whose track record of being right on Bitcoin has been spotty at best, often because they're more interested in spending ages solving complicated engineering problems rather than in providing "simple fixes" for real users in the real world.
Meanwhile, guys like Gavin, JGarzik, and JToomim - all of whom are involved with Bitcoin Classic - are operating more in the spirit of Satoshi - they've been working closely with real users in the real world, figuring out what they really need and want and getting ready to actually deliver it, soon - which is why consensus among users, miners, devs and businesses has been rapidly coalescing around the new competing repo Bitcoin Classic.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Self-censorship is why Baidu stopped accepting bitcoin

There is now an ongoing debate about whether bitcoin is banned as payment or not in China. here is my take:
It's still a gray area.
So why Baidu stopped accepting it? Because of self-censorship. For you westerns to understand this you need to understand the "river crab culture" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_crab_(Internet_slang) .
All contents on Chinese internet are self-censored. there is never an official notice about what words are banned, but every website have their own list. How do they make this list? some of them are common sense, like "64" June 4th or the name of the guy who won Noble Peace Price. others can be from a direct phone call from some officer. If your website is deemed to be not clean, then can just shut down the server. Then you move your sever abroad? then you get GFW'ed.
Baidu is just applying the same mentality to Bitcoin, The Party said it's dangerous, and we don't know it'd be deemed OK or not, Then we shouldn't risk it: what we could gain is little but what we could lose is a lot.
You really need to understand this is a different the society, there are grey areas everywhere. Recently the Premier said to Jack Ma, the boss of Alibaba.com and Taobao.com, publicly that, "Comrade Ma, according to the regulations, your companies(those that sell stuff on Taobao) were illegal, ..., they are now legal with our now regulations." http://www.techweb.com.cn/internet/2013-11-10/1354786.shtml
Don't be surprised, these are just how things work. Bitcoin will be endorsed if it helps the economy just like Taobao, on the other hand, if it endangers the regime, it'll be kill without mercy, at least they'll try.
Edit: fixed the river crab link; added google translate link for the Jack Ma news.
submitted by oxfeeefeee to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin insurgency weapons

It is my hope that the recent actions by China are basically focused on "cleaning up" black market/criminal activity in the Chinese cryptocurrency scene, and that at some point we'll see the doors reopen for bitcoin trading.
But if I'm wrong, or other nations take this route, what are the weapons in the crypto arsenal by which we can defeat blanket bans on Bitcoin ownership and trading? Let's say all domestic exchanges are banned and foreign ones are blocked by the "Great Firewall" (or equivalent), as well as trying to block every full node. How then do bitcoin users within the affect country retain visibility to the blockchain, and make new transactions?
One piece of the response would certainly be Blockstream's new satellite technology. It completely circumvents all internet-based censorship of the blockchain, so long as the necessary hardware can be obtained. Is it susceptible to jamming?
If bitcoin users to view the blockchain with the satellite feed they still need a way to send out TX. I've heard of radio mesh networks that could be used to transmit TX. Are any of those operational today?
Since an average TX is only ~225 bytes, it seems to me that it would be easy for TX to be hidden in encrypted messages. Even ordinary email could be used, sending the encrypted TX to an offshore service that decrypts the TX and posts it to the mempool as a service to users in the interdicted country.
And with atomic swaps this would eliminate the need for access to an offshore exchange to trade with other cryptocurrencies. It would only be a question of providing wallets for each crypto to users within the interdicted country. (For fiat-BTC trading it might be necessary for users in such a country to travel abroad, such as to Hong Kong or S. Korea.)
Thoughts? What other tools exist or could be developed to help bitcoin users in the face of a serious government ban? What could the government do to fight them?
submitted by ebliever to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Big time article in Wall Street journal today.

The following post by Turbodiesel67 is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/71z7he
The original post's content was as follows:
WSJ has a glowing interview/article with Balaji Srinivasan about the future of Bitcoin. Nothing about a bubble, nothing about frauds or scams. This is a tacit endorsement by the best financial paper in the world.
The paper describes bitcoin and the blockchain in general as the "internet of money" and describes how it is revolutionizing everything in finance. It goes on to describe how China is trying to manipulate bitcoin in order to facilitate their own currency tied to the renminbi, or to capture bitcoin for themselves. WSJ explains how china created the great firewall shortly after the internet was invented, and now they're trying to do the same with blockchains and crypto... China isn't banning bitcoin. They plan on regulating it themselves.
This is the most positive sign I have seen around bitcoin in a long time. Wall Street journal putting out a positive article about BTC is a huge progress.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Regarding the "Bitcoin and Magical Thinking" blog post spotlighted on Techmeme today - The network, the infrastructure, and the community behind it is hardly a "magical thought."

I'm referring to this post, which a Bitcoin-opposing friend just sent to me with the subject line, "An damning indictment" -
http://www.techmeme.com/131219/p3#a131219p3
I responded with this:
The network, the infrastructure, and the community behind Bitcoin is hardly a "magical thought" (Here's the definition of that concept from contemporary Western psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking)
Two weeks ago, there was very good debate about Bitcoin -
Ultimate Bitcoin Showdown - Posted Dec 2, 2013 - [30:14] - Goldbug/dollar-skeptic Peter Schiff vs. Erik Voorhees, Bitcoin entrepreneur formerly of BitInstant (https://www.bitinstant.com/), now of Coinapult (https://coinapult.com/) - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/erik-voorhees/b/804/385
I'll post the link to the full video below, but I first want to quote from it:
As Voorhees says, gold-backed digital curencies have been attempted and were then quickly shut down by the gov't. He later says (at 9:20), "[Bitcoin] could absolutely go to zero and the whole thing is completely experimental right now. So I'm not here to say that Bitcoin is a good investment. What I'm here to say is that the Bitcoin payment network is one of the most important technologies that has ever been invented, and it's important to understand that there is value in that technology [and] it's important to understand why that technology is so useful to people, especially people who care about liberty around the world." And he explains later that this infrastructure cannot be reproduced easily...even if Bitcoin is not the winner of the crypto-currency market competition. He also compares the hardy vitality of P2P currencies to that of P2P file-sharing. The free, independent Napster file-sharing service was launched in June of 1999 an rocketed to popularity, but the shutdown of it in July of 2001 was not exactly the end of free P2P music-sharing... In fact, just going by the services that I can just recall fellow college students using at the time, there was:
SoulSeek (launched in 1999/2000)
Gnutella (early 2000)
BearShare (December 2000)
Morpheus (2001)
Kazaa (March 2001), and
LimeWire (May 2000).
And of course there are the file-sharing services that are popular today, from Dropbox to these:
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/file-sharing-websites
to these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients
Now. As far as digital crypto-currencies today, there's Litecoin, Peercoin, Namecoin, Quark, Protoshares, Worldcoin, Megacoin, Primecoin, and Dogecoin, and dozens other listed here, totaling in 54:
http://coinmarketcap.com/
The point that Voorhees makes about the pooled inventiveness and ingenuity of the crowd reminds me of something both revolutionary and prophetic that was said by John Gilmore (an American computer science innovator, Libertarian, Internet activist, and one of the founders of Electronic Frontier Foundation). He said:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
-As quoted in TIME magazine (6 December 1993) (yes, 1993!)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
Furthermore, on a separate note, the media angle that Bitcoin is practically "over" because of China blocking it (which that same friend was gloating about), here's all I have to say as well:
Here's a list of enterprises that were hardly destroyed after being banned in glorious all-powerful China:
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, WikiLeaks, and the New York Times' online edition (and a few others, named at the following links) were each NOT blasted into nonexistence by the force of "the Golden Shield Project," which we Americans call "the Great Firewall." Yup, Bitcoin is "over"!
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#China
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/world/asia/china-blocks-web-access-to-new-york-times.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Hey, but waddaya know - Some of the 1,350,695,000 people in The People's Republic have ways around that censorship, as do the millions of people in so many other Internet-censoring countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Evasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvention#Software

Here's the full video of the Bitcoin debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mUn-d8R98k
Edit/Follow-up: To extend the analogy of P2P digital currencies and P2P file-sharing (and most notably, music-sharing), what would be the currency equivalent of iTunes, which came ou in January 2001? Will JPMorgan's crypto-currency project (as I saw here, and it was downvoted to hell: http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1sp6hh/jpmorgan_is_looking_to_copy_bitcoin_and_the_coin/), even though it was initially rejected 175 times, find some way to charge/surcharge people small amounts at a time for usage (a la iTunes' 99 cents per song), in traditional-bank-style?
submitted by wazzzzah to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Man jailed for selling VPNs to evade China’s ‘Great F******l’

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 52%. (I'm a bot)
Deng had been selling two VPNs via his website since October 2015, and was first detained in August last year.
Many wondered why VPN services were considered as "Invading and illegally controlling" a computer system, while others worried they might face punishment for using the VPNs. "If selling a VPN means a conviction for 'providing software and tools for invading and illegally controlling the computer information system', then everyone here who uses a VPN to evade the Great Firewall can also be convicted of illegally invading or illegally controlling the computer information system, right?" one of the most liked comments on Weibo said.
Under new rules issued in March, people in Chongqing who use VPNs to access banned sites get a message on their computer telling them to disconnect, while those who generate profits of more than 5,000 yuan from using a VPN can be fined up to 15,000 yuan.
VPNs are a popular way to skirt the Great Firewall by connecting to the internet outside mainland China.
Bloomberg reported in July that the state-run telecoms firms China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom had been ordered to stop allowing the use of VPNs by February next year, but the Ministry of Industry and Information later denied the report.
China's popular e-commerce platform Taobao, owned by Alibaba, which also owns the South China Morning Post, was reprimanded last month by the Zhejiang provincial branch of the country's top cyber regulator for allowing vendors to sell VPNs on the platform, and was ordered to remove the products.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: VPN#1 China#2 computer#3 information#4 illegally#5
Post found in /China, /worldnews, /BitcoinAll, /Bitcoin, /realtech, /technology, /AutoNewspaper, /UMukhasimAutoNews and /SCMPauto.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

09-29 08:12 - 'And a cheat it was, exploited by Chinese mining cabals/cartels. It was not only Chinese mining pools "cheating" but they were also the sole source of the mining chips themselves. That's a **massive** conflict of interest. They...' by /u/darkernet removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-10min

'''
And a cheat it was, exploited by Chinese mining cabals/cartels. It was not only Chinese mining pools "cheating" but they were also the sole source of the mining chips themselves. That's a massive conflict of interest. They were not only manufacturing them, but using them to mine, then waiting months before trickling them into the public's hands. This was so they could make a boat load of money before the difficulty increase. The entire thing was a scam all ran by a few colluding Chinese businessmen in China.
When China entered the bitcoin scene some years back, everyone welcomed them with their arms wide open, as if this was a good thing. I was one of the few with the foresight and geopolitical knowledge to know this was not only bad, but that it couldn't end any way but how it has - scratch that, it could have ended a lot worse but I won't speculate on that right now.
One thing /Bitcoin doesn't understand, is that China's government isn't like any government in the west. They have absolute control over there. What they say goes, end of story. This is important because they have strict fiscal controls on their citizens and how they can spend/invest their money. They can't send money overseas, hide it, or invest in foreign companies without government approval, and they almost never give that approval unless you're connected or mega rich.
Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies allowed them to bypass the government regulations. Given that this is a country with a great firewall, and is incredibly touchy when it comes to money, it was only a matter of time before they cracked down hard on cryptocurrency. I'm actually astounded they allowed it to continue as long as it did. I can only speculate as to why they allowed it to continue for years unchecked, but I'd guess that they were attempting to figure a way to control it, or perhaps even take it over since the big mining cabals all resided in China, within the government's authority. After August 1st came and their hostile takeover failed, they neutered the exchanges and looks like they're going to be either banning or heavily regulating crypto.
OP calls it a conspiracy (that the CCP is/was involved with bitcoin in some way) but is it really a conspiracy? China is one of the most controlling and authoritarian governments on the planet. Rather than be a conspiracy, I think it should just be assumed that is what happened. Unless they're completely incompetent, (they're not), I'd be amazed if they weren't involved. Bitcoin is literally, not figuratively, the antithesis of their own fiscal ideology.
How anyone here could think China was going to be a friend to bitcoin would make me laugh if it weren't so sad. The government of China helping the TOR project, or preaching information freedom, and being against censorship would be more likely than them allowing and facilitating their own citizens bypassing their strict financial regulations and laws.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: darkernet
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2016-11-05 to 2016-12-04 23:06 PDT

Period: 29.76 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 26468
Rate (per day) 33.61 875.03
Unique Redditors 395 1784
Combined Score 46892 99911

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 2360 points, 29 submissions: ydtm
    1. u/jessquit to u/nullc "You're so fucking shameless, devoting your career to crippling one of the most disruptive inventions since the Internet to please your investment team. Watching you go down in flames will be one of the great moments in computer science. Your legacy will be a monument of shame" (214 points, 40 comments)
    2. Suggestion for new terminology. Instead of saying "small blocks" vs "big blocks", we could say: "centrally planned blocksize" vs "market-based blocksize". This will make it clear that some solutions are based on markets and economics, and other solutions are based on central planning. (195 points, 64 comments)
    3. 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. (180 points, 35 comments)
    4. Letting FEES float without letting BLOCKSIZES float is NOT a "market". A market has 2 sides: One side provides a product/service (blockspace), the other side pays fees/money (BTC). An "efficient market" is when players compete and evolve on BOTH sides, approaching an ideal FEE/BLOCKSIZE EQUILIBRIUM. (153 points, 42 comments)
    5. Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them? (149 points, 66 comments)
    6. "Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt (124 points, 80 comments)
    7. Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream. (119 points, 182 comments)
    8. u/Luke-Jr: "The best available here is currently 5Mb down + 512k up DSL." // u/TruthReasonOrLies: "You seem to want to hold back the network development and growth to support those who are the least likely to run full nodes or mining." (114 points, 45 comments)
    9. The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime (90 points, 41 comments)
    10. Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life. (88 points, 26 comments)
  2. 2261 points, 29 submissions: blockologist
    1. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: bitcoin is an echo chamber and should be boycotted (371 points, 69 comments)
    2. Gavin Andersen: Eitheor : ignore! (205 points, 41 comments)
    3. Coinbase - Protecting Customer Privacy: "we will oppose the government’s petition in court" (201 points, 28 comments)
    4. LOL u/peoplma predicted the r\Bitcoin front page perfectly nearly a year ago (178 points, 22 comments)
    5. David Jerry on Twitter: Want real evidence of echo chamber censorship on Bitcoin? @gavinandresen posted identical opposite tweets btc has both, bitcoin only 1 (174 points, 45 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Scaling Solution Segwit a “Bait and Switch”, says Roger Ver (120 points, 110 comments)
    7. Holy cow! ViaBTC raised over 90 btc in less than 24hrs for their Bitcoin Unlimited cloud mining program (104 points, 40 comments)
    8. "You don't have to wear a tin-foil hat to see that core has been pushing for some things which change the fundamental economic policies of bitcoin; changes which a substantial portion of the community is against." - u/jratcliff63367 (103 points, 82 comments)
    9. Brian Hoffman on Twitter: The fact that the Bitcoin community argues so vehemently that there is no possible alternative to the Core path shows their shortsightedness (88 points, 6 comments)
    10. Andrew Lee (Purse.io CEO) on Twitter: Multiple compatible implementations will Make Bitcoin Great Again (83 points, 16 comments)
  3. 2176 points, 12 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin (625 points, 125 comments)
    2. /btc exclusive: Photos of a bitcoin mining operation in rural China (398 points, 101 comments)
    3. BU lead developer Andrew Stone: A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core (232 points, 144 comments)
    4. "The Community Has Spoken" (166 points, 65 comments)
    5. BashCo explains that if you want to discuss non-Core software on /Bitcoin, you must submit a BIP, get a BIP number, wait for peer review, modify BIP, more peer review, start serious coding, start testing, more peer review... then you may discuss it once it is "deemed safe." (163 points, 133 comments)
    6. "I'm not aware of any problem." -Greg Maxwell (158 points, 64 comments)
    7. Yet another example of censorship in /bitcoin. It is no longer possible to believe that the discussion in that subreddit is in any way honest or representative of community opinion. (123 points, 56 comments)
    8. "Segwit Blockers" is a pejorative term which automatically shifts debate to imply that one side is correct and the other is blocking progress. (120 points, 140 comments)
    9. Another post censored from /bitcoin. I'd like to know which rules were broken or what made my comment unacceptable. (71 points, 26 comments)
    10. spez: "We are taking a more aggressive stance against toxic users and poorly behaving communities." -- I wonder if this will apply to Theymos and /bitcoin? (57 points, 20 comments)
  4. 1861 points, 34 submissions: Egon_1
    1. It would be incredibly unfortunate if organic growth in Bitcoin gets dismissed as spam attacks because of suspicion about people's agendas. (146 points, 33 comments)
    2. Is it just me or is anyone else noticing that some of the Core developers are saying 'Bitcoin's creator' instead of saying Satoshi? (139 points, 67 comments)
    3. "It's not really "segwit blockers", it's more "segwit ignorers". The difference is one of not seeing Core as some Reference Code." (135 points, 32 comments)
    4. "Upcoming AMA with Bitcoin Unlimited devs in Chinese Community 8BTC, Nov 19 at 8-10AM Beijing Time" (127 points, 9 comments)
    5. So discussing block size increase is too controversial for /bitcoin but suggesting algorithm change is not? • /Bitcoin (125 points, 76 comments)
    6. "The Bitcoin Unlimited implementation excludes RBF as BU supports zero-confirmation use-cases inherent to peer-to-peer cash." (119 points, 101 comments)
    7. ... Segwit as a SF tries to make non-segwit txs more expensive relative to segwit txs to 'discourage' their use (100 points, 86 comments)
    8. Sergio."Also @Blockstream hid the fact they had applied for the patent. That's misleading (deceptive?). DPL was necessary to protect reputation(1/2)" (93 points, 42 comments)
    9. "Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted." (88 points, 43 comments)
    10. If you're working on BTC remittances or micropayments under the current regime of increasing fees, you're going to have a bad time. (88 points, 28 comments)
  5. 1791 points, 25 submissions: realistbtc
    1. the systematic censorship policy of r\bitcoin is one of the clearest proof of the technical inferiority of blockstream core prescribed solutions : if they were just better , there would be no need for such policy . (219 points, 74 comments)
    2. Mycelium.com on Twitter - ' We say one thing, we lose half our customers. We say another thing, we lose the other half. Thanks bitcoin censorship that isn't a problem! ' (202 points, 134 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on twitter : " Any studies on company success versus amount of posts from C-level execs on Reddit or Twitter?" - " My intuition is 'too much' is bad-- sign of distracted leadership, especially for CTO " (186 points, 70 comments)
    4. just so you know , now nullc is calling jtoomim a scammer : character assassination is a standard operational mode of the guys from blockstream . (129 points, 54 comments)
    5. luke-jr acknowledge that block latency isn't a problem anymore : " block latency has been a big issue in the past as well, but presumably compact/xthin blocks has solved it " - we have to thanks the BU team for that , that in turn pressed blockstream core to finally do something too (116 points, 32 comments)
    6. A glimpse into the mind of greg maxwell : " .... since you're never going to think highly of me again I can continue to whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking mass of people. " (wikipedia history , jan 2006 ) (83 points, 67 comments)
    7. after days , segwit signaling is oscillating between 15-25% . that's a far cry from what blockstream core was expecting . if they were ready to label a 10% resistance ' blockers' , now they will have to come to terms with the fact that thir proposal is simply not good enough . (79 points, 33 comments)
    8. slush on Twitter : ' Just ask BU devs to stop blocking Segwit.' - please stop mining at slush and buying trezors - slush has fallen to the blockstream cartel dark side (78 points, 256 comments)
    9. Jihan Wu on Twitter : " BTCC management team killed its no.1 position by raising fees while everyone wanted to trade in 2013Q4. Similar stupid mindset, right? " (78 points, 9 comments)
    10. Jihan Wu on Twitter : " My partner doesn't have pw of my Twitter to del twits, so Samson Joker pls focus on trolling and destroying BTCC, and not pm him any more. " (72 points, 18 comments)
  6. 1375 points, 17 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. PSA: Even CEOs of major Bitcoin companies are unaware of the suppression of discussion by Theymos and supported by Core supporters. (209 points, 97 comments)
    2. When /bitcoin started the censorship, they prevented honest discussion, split the community, and dramatically slowed down Bitcoin's progress (167 points, 125 comments)
    3. The Bitcoin.com Pool now has over 40 Peta hashes, and 2% of the global hash rate. Some users are reporting being paid as much as 8.5% more bitcoin than other pools. (132 points, 30 comments)
    4. The Bitcoin.com pool has mined over 100 blocks, and nearly 1,500 BTC so far. Looking to come out of closed beta soon. (132 points, 68 comments)
    5. /Bitcoin user caught misrepresenting and lying to attack on chain scaling supporters again (115 points, 97 comments)
    6. As Bitcoin user & enthusiast, I'd be grateful to Core, @Blockstream, and all miners if they would just stick to Satoshi's original plan. Pls RT (92 points, 126 comments)
    7. An interview with Bitcoin Unlimited Developer Andrew Stone (86 points, 24 comments)
    8. Coming very soon: More Cash for your Hash (79 points, 26 comments)
    9. The free On Chain Scaling conference starts today at 17:00 GMT! (78 points, 74 comments)
    10. An example of how a Core supporter intentionally misrepresents the truth to support his position. (71 points, 95 comments)
  7. 1239 points, 46 submissions: chinawat
    1. Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers. • x-post from /Bitcoin (151 points, 133 comments)
    2. "It is too early to talk about the tx fee market before Bitcoin is accepted across the world." - ViaBTC on Twitter (124 points, 13 comments)
    3. /HailCorporate gets wind of /Bitcoin censorship, theymos attempts to justify and downplay his behavior (92 points, 10 comments)
    4. Here we go again. My mempool is just exceed 33k. Prepare for transaction delay posts. (69 points, 48 comments)
    5. jstolfi is at it with the SEC again (48 points, 125 comments)
    6. New York is Gradually Losing its Shot at Becoming a Global Bitcoin Hub (45 points, 8 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin SegWit narrative shifting -- regulars now claiming signaling and activation was always expected to be slow (43 points, 35 comments)
    8. "There's Chaos Everywhere" - Indians Angry As ATMs Run Dry After Cash Ban (39 points, 11 comments)
    9. ViaBTC's Transaction Accelerator Test Results • x-post from /Bitcoin (39 points, 12 comments)
    10. Wikileaks latest insurance files don't match hashes (x-post from /crypto) (38 points, 1 comment)
  8. 1115 points, 12 submissions: BiggerBlocksPlease
    1. Another successful hard fork by Ethereum occurred today. Protocol upgrades are possible. Don't listen to lies from entrenched interests that say otherwise. (202 points, 78 comments)
    2. I think if it comes down to it, Core would rather remain in control, even if it means introducing a small blocksize increase, as opposed to losing control entirely. We should not lose sight of our larger goals no matter what carrots they throw our way: We need a new, un-corrupt dev team. (177 points, 65 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Devs can't just say the price of Bitcoin should be stuck at $100 per coin. The market decides. Just like Core shouldn't say the size of a block is stuck at 1MB. The market should decide! Take centrally planned actors OUT of the equation. This is Bitcoin-- Not the Federal Reserve. (145 points, 39 comments)
    4. Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows. (120 points, 34 comments)
    5. Miner Jiang Zhou'er: "I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive. ..some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation." (95 points, 63 comments)
    6. We need more exclusive content for /btc with watermarks stating against censorship in /bitcoin. The new content will be effective in spreading the word! (79 points, 32 comments)
    7. No one (except the market) knows what the price of Bitcoin should be, just like no one (except the market) knows what the size of blocks should be. Bitcoin Unlimited allows a market-decided blocksize. Bitcoin Core allows a centrally planned blocksize. (74 points, 20 comments)
    8. MYTH: "Bitcoin Unlimited isn't meant for mining." -- FACT: ViaBTC has been mining with BU and has the best performance of ALL pools. [see link inside] (71 points, 61 comments)
    9. It is likely a Core-affiliated extremist will attack pools mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks. I recommend Bitcoin.com Pool goes live ASAP, with over 10% hashrate, so we have multiple pools for redundancy. 10-12% hashrate is not enough in the face of attackers who try to artificially activate Segwit. (64 points, 52 comments)
    10. Theymos: "I know how moderation affects people" ... "This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it and bitcoin.org" (2015) (59 points, 43 comments)
  9. 1111 points, 52 submissions: knight222
    1. ViaBTC: "I think the most important thing is BU has the support of Bitmain and F2pool, they have said privately they will switch to BU, I am very much looking forward to the arrival of that day." (86 points, 68 comments)
    2. /BTC Enthusiasts Want The /Bitcoin Moderators Gone Once And For All (77 points, 9 comments)
    3. Total Bitcoin Transaction Volume Surpassed US$100bn in September (53 points, 17 comments)
    4. Fedora Receives Its Own Electrum Bitcoin Wallet Client (50 points, 4 comments)
    5. IRS Demands Records of 4.8 Million Bitcoin Users over 3 Alleged Tax Dodgers (43 points, 4 comments)
    6. Several Mycelium Users Report Unusually High Bitcoin Transaction Fees (40 points, 38 comments)
    7. Overstock Reveals Latest Effort Within the Bitcoin Space (40 points, 2 comments)
    8. EY Switzerland, World Top Four Accounting Firm, to Accept Bitcoin (40 points, 2 comments)
    9. Chinese dominance in the blockchain space now includes startup investments (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. Will Bitcoin Become the new "Swiss Bank Account"? (31 points, 10 comments)
  10. 939 points, 5 submissions: JohnBlocke
    1. John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin (461 points, 251 comments)
    2. Peter Todd in 2013: "If I were the US Government and had co-opted the "core" Bitcoin dev team, you know what I'd do?..." (158 points, 85 comments)
    3. UPDATE: Coindesk & Bitcoin Magazine still have not mentioned the $1.2 million donated by members of the Bitcoin industry to fund protocol development. What is their agenda? (118 points, 23 comments)
    4. John Blocke: Echo Chambers (116 points, 53 comments)
    5. Bitcoin companies pledge to donate $1.2M USD to protocol development, and not a peep from the bitcoin media? (86 points, 21 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Noosterdam (3181 points, 564 comments)
  2. H0dlr (2189 points, 354 comments)
  3. ViaBTC (1994 points, 65 comments)
  4. seweso (1887 points, 377 comments)
  5. todu (1883 points, 365 comments)
  6. Helvetian616 (1662 points, 265 comments)
  7. Ant-n (1554 points, 453 comments)
  8. dskloet (1521 points, 230 comments)
  9. MemoryDealers (1500 points, 104 comments)
  10. Egon_1 (1475 points, 134 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin by BeijingBitcoins (625 points, 125 comments)
  2. John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin by JohnBlocke (461 points, 251 comments)
  3. /btc exclusive: Photos of a bitcoin mining operation in rural China by BeijingBitcoins (398 points, 101 comments)
  4. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted." by sandakersmann (376 points, 184 comments)
  5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: bitcoin is an echo chamber and should be boycotted by blockologist (371 points, 69 comments)
  6. I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything! by ViaBTC (337 points, 858 comments)
  7. Bitcoin Classic is Back! by ThomasZander (279 points, 92 comments)
  8. Problem? No problems here. by mohrt (246 points, 105 comments)
  9. nullc is actively trying to delete Satoshi from history. First he assigned all satoshi commits on github to himself, then he wanted to get rid of the whitepaper as it is and now notice how he never says "Satoshi", he says "Bitcoin's Creator". by blockstreamcoin (243 points, 243 comments)
  10. Censorship test from Gavin: post two positive things one about BU and another about SW, and see what happens by chakrop (240 points, 69 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 206 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  2. 118 points: solex1's comment in Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted."
  3. 110 points: viners's comment in "It cannot be permitted to work." nullc
  4. 97 points: jstolfi's comment in Is LN vaporware and if not why do posters keep saying it is? (x-post from bitcoin)
  5. 95 points: satoshis_sockpuppet's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  6. 91 points: dskloet's comment in Cannot wait for Core trolls who don't understand queue theory to lose it. Grab your popcorn as we finally approach 100% utilization and an ever increasing backlog.
  7. 90 points: BitcoinXio's comment in I love Bitcoin
  8. 86 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  9. 85 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
  10. 82 points: Noosterdam's comment in John Blocke: A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Greece, Bitcoin, and Block Sizes

Many people in Greece are currently learning a difficult lesson about centralized currency. When a government entity can control your money, they have the ability to devalue it and block you from spending it. A lot of people are losing lots of money at a time in their life when they really need access to it. Everyone in the whole country is losing money, and it's a terrible thing for their economy.
Bitcoin is currently a strong alternative to centralized currency. Governments can't print money, and they can't shut down nodes that are running Bitcoin. They can't implement capital controls on Bitcoin. At least, they can't right now. But that's because Bitcoin is decentralized, and because any random home computer is capable of running a Bitcoin node, and the machine doesn't need to be a dedicated Bitcoin machine.
I'm now going to describe a potential dystopian future that I legitimately fear. Lets imagine that it becomes expensive to run a Bitcoin node. The average home user is no longer able to run a Bitcoin node because the block sizes and standard usage are just too large. Running a Bitcoin node requires a dedicated server, and the costs of doing so are multiple hundred dollars a year plus multiple hundred dollars of dedicated machine. At the same time, in an effort to save their own currency, a struggling country decides to outright ban bitcoin.
When nodes are so expensive to run, there will only be a few entities actually running full nodes. Bitcoin companies will likely be running and sharing Bitcoin nodes. A few universities, and then a very few number of enthusiasts who really care about Bitcoin. Given that there are only a few thousand Bitcoin nodes running today, and everyone is suffering from diffusion of responsibility, it's pretty easy to imagine that in the future where Bitcoin nodes are literally hundreds of dollars to run, there will only be a few hundred nodes.
A country trying to ban Bitcoin is going to have a much easier time doing so. They can find and shut down most of the nodes inside of the country, and they can block internet access (like the great firewall of china) to other Bitcoin nodes around the world. You can't run anonymous Bitcoin nodes anymore, because Tor is slow and can't keep up with XXMB block sizes. The average SPV node is unable to connect to the greater Bitcoin network inside of this country without special configuration.
People who are skilled will be able to apply special configuration and get around the firewall. They will be okay. But that's not something my mother or father could figure out, and God help the rest of my extended family.
This scenario gets substantially worse as you continue to increase the block size. If we end up with XXX MB blocks, such that running a node takes thousands of dollars per year to maintain, censorship and control over these nodes is going to be substantially easier, simply because it's difficult to hide such a powerful piece of hardware, and because so few people/entities will go through the trouble of actually running one.
When we look at things like increasing the block size, we need to make sure that we aren't losing the forest for the trees. I don't want people to one day realize that a government is able control their access to Bitcoin simply because they wanted blocks to be big enough to keep up with Visa. If you need datacenters to run Bitcoin nodes, you've lost everything that made Bitcoin special in the first place. A handful of datacenters can be subject to government control. Thousands of globally distributed and partially or fully anonymous nodes cannot be subject to anonymous control.
When you look at whether or not the block size should be increased, please consider this. Bitcoin is much more than a cool, technological way to pay for your lunch. It's a contingency plan for when your fiat starts falling apart, and your government starts mishandling your centralized money. Bitcoin needs to be cheap enough for any random person to run a full node. Bitcoin doesn't need to work on a phone, raspi, nor does it need to be a cheap thing, but it does need to be accessible on standard consumer hardware in emergency situations like the one that Greece is currently facing. Bitcoin needs to be able to tolerate adversarial governments, and decentralization is the best way we know to achieve that.
Addtionally, Bitcoin needs to remain small enough to be run through Tor. Tor is slow and expensive, and I'm not sure on the exact numbers but 20mb blocks requires 90GB of downloading every month, something that would put a lot of strain on the Tor network. Unbounded block sizes are absolutely, completely unacceptable.
Would Bitcoin be okay at 2mb blocks? Probably. 4mb blocks? Probably? 8mb? 8mb is where I start to get worried. 8mb is reasonable for people who live in a city and have good internet speeds. But a large portion of the world's population does not live in a city, and has to deal with very expensive internet that struggles to break the 20mbps point. They have bandwidth caps in the low hundreds of GB. And if they are using Bitcoin as a contingency plan, they'll likely have to download a large portion of the blockchain from scratch. It shouldn't take 2 months of bandwidth to download Bitcoin, but that's a potential problem when the block size starts to go up.
As the block size debate continues, please remember the importance of decentralization. Remember Tor, and remember that large portions of the population don't have access to city internet. When you increase the block size, you EXCLUDE people from being able to run nodes, and while that doesn't change their daily interactions with Bitcoin, it does change their ability to use Bitcoin in emergency situations.
My personal vote would be for 2mb or 4mb blocks, but nothing larger. I do think that Bitcoin + the Internet in general is at a point where we can tolerate a block size increase. But I do not think that 20mb is a reasonable number. The number of nodes will continue to fall sharply if we do that, and that dramatically hurts our ability to use Bitcoin in situations where our government is trying to control our money. It destroys Bitcoin's core purpose.
submitted by Taek42 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BITCOIN FIREwall sale, Chinas Great Firewall, SEC & CFTC ... CHINA BANS BITCOIN...AGAIN! ( Southpark Meme ) Report Links 74% of Bitcoin Mining to China, Sees Threat ... China's TRON (TRX) Update and the GREAT FIREWALL

China's Great Firewall, a tool used to ban Chinese people from using sites like Google, and Facebook, has blocked Etherscan’s site. China's Great Firewall, a tool used to ban Chinese citizens from using sites like Google and Facebook, has listed a major explorer for Ethereum’s blockchain.According to data from non-profit monitoring organization GreatFire, China allegedly blocked one of the ... Happy Birthday Bitcoin! Here’s a Look at Bitcoin’s 11th Year by… Bitcoin Tec. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. HelloBitcoin. Happy 10th Birthday: How Bitcoin started and flourished. HelloBitcoin. Most Useful Bitcoin Data Resources. HelloBitcoin. Is Bitcoin Legal? Tec & Research. All Application Bitcoin Tec Blockchain Tec Data analysis. Bitcoin Tec. The third Bitcoin ... The ‘Great Firewall’ can’t stop OTC Bitcoin Trading in China. By Lutpin - March 18, 2017. 182. 0. SHARE. Facebook. Twitter. tweet; The popular opinion worldwide is Bitcoin trading cannot be stopped even by the very rigid censorship of the Chinese Government and the People’s Bank of China on crypto currencies. Bitcoin exchanges have introduced unique procedures such as “Know your ... Bitcoin has dropped markedly since China banned the cryptocurrency from its country Ban on crypto. The Chinese government recently declared a ban on cryptocurrency. The state said the currency was too difficult to control and allowed for illicit purchases. It plans to block major websites like Coinbase, Kraken or Cex.io through its “great firewall” Will it work? China has successfully ... 12/24/2019 Comments Off on The ‘Great Firewall’ can’t stop OTC Bitcoin Trading in China Bitcoin. The ‘Great Firewall’ can’t stop OTC Bitcoin Trading in China . The popular opinion worldwide is Bitcoin trading cannot be stopped even by the very rigid censorship of the Chinese Government and the People’s Bank of China on crypto currencies. Bitcoin exchanges have introduced unique ...

[index] [1487] [31803] [41051] [7807] [35710] [17049] [35481] [49385] [39228] [32267]

BITCOIN FIREwall sale, Chinas Great Firewall, SEC & CFTC ...

Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser. Facts You Need to Know about Bitcoin Ban in China - Duration: 1:52. CCTV Video News Agency 1,763 views. 1:52 . We looked inside a secret Chinese bitcoin mine - Duration: 3:42. Chandler Guo 104,083 ... China's "Great Firewall" of Internet censorship explained. Free audiobook: http://www.audibletrial.com/TheDailyConversation Subscribe to TDC: https://www.you... Michael Anti (aka Jing Zhao) has been blogging from China for 12 years. Despite the control the central government has over the Internet -- "All the servers ... China is known for its internet censorship. A number of apps such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. which are commonplace in the world have been banned in China. In the wake of India placing a ...

#