Slush Fund Archives BitcoInternet

Remember the donation-driven mining fund? It has officially switched to Bitcoin Unlimited! 100BTC lifetime donations has yielded 700BTC mined/reinvested so far (via Slush) /r/btc

Remember the donation-driven mining fund? It has officially switched to Bitcoin Unlimited! 100BTC lifetime donations has yielded 700BTC mined/reinvested so far (via Slush) /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

I don’t agree with the statement in the AMA that developers will set the agenda.

source
submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin will be used to ensure business transparency.

Once consumers and shareholders learn that Bitcoin and distributed ledger technology can be used to audit corporations and businesses, they will never again trust the dollar and executive management slush funds will be forced to be kept in moderation, disappear, or happen off the ledger.
Distributed ledger technology will hold companies accountable for every action they take on a distributed ledger with their money.
Just let that sink in, if we were to pass a law forcing companies, or the federal government, to use them.
I think we would be in a much better place.
submitted by CorrectPoetry0 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BTC is now pick 2 of 3: Low fees/Fast confirmation times/Security

In some recent comments Bitcoin Core supporters are telling people Lightning is optional and I agree.
However if you think Lightning is optional then you limit your options even further when using Bitcoin. Based on today's current state of Bitcoin here are your options when using Bitcoin to send cash:
1) onchain Bitcoin with a low fee: Security + Low fee = Slow confirmation time
2) onchain Bitcoin with a high fee: Security + High fee = Fast confirmation time (So long as no one outbids you out of the block during times of high volume)
3) Lightning: Low fee + Fast transaction time(no confirmation as Lightning transactions are not confirmed onchain until you close your channel) = No Security
examples of each is:
1) Tony Vays sent a Bitcoin transaction with a "low fee" of $0.25 that took 11 hours to confirm and probably would have taken longer if SlushPool didn't manually add his transaction. I'm being liberal with "low" because anyone using cash today does not pay $0.25 extra for a transaction to buy coffee.
2) Exchange withdrawals: Usually exchanges raise the fee several levels higher to ensure the confirmation goes through sooner than later. You've probably heard of /bitcoin users complaining about this, but this is just the cost of good business. Exchanges don't want users complaining about waiting 11 hours and creating unnecessary support tickets because Bitcoin is congested again.
3) Lightning has low fees and fast tx times, but until you close that Lightning channel that transaction is still unconfirmed onchain and anything can happen. This is why /bitcoin users recommend using watchtower services to secure your Lightning funds, as someone must always be watching over your funds to prevent them from being stolen. If you stay offline for too long your funds may be stolen. Until your close your LN channel your must check in on your Lightning funds periodically to defend against theft attempts as you become the security of your funds, not the Bitcoin blockchain.
So this is the convoluted state of Bitcoin today. A Rube Goldberg vision of p2p digital cash where first you must decide on your priorities and only then then transfer funds between Bitcoin or Lightning as necessary before deciding to send someone cash. Not very frictionless cash is it...
Or you can just use Bitcon Cash which has none of these complications and just works.
edit1: Bitcoin.org acknowledges the Bitcoin's degradation of utility as well: https://www.ccn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Bitcoin.org-Transaction-Fees-1024x555.jpg
submitted by 500239 to btc [link] [comments]

How can I best prepare my children financially?

USA! Throwaway for obvious reasons.
Recently (today), my wife gave birth to twins. I am very happy, but I feel that there is a great opportunity here to best help them 15 years down the track.
I feel that if I do nothing for them, they will be mad.
I am 28, my wife is 29. My job as a remote CTO in a funded startup with a valuation of 50 million pays 240k. I am a founder so I have significant ownership stake. My wife is not working as she has been pregnant. Previously she was a personal trainer earning 100k/year. She is planning to return in 6 months.
Right now we live in a really low COL place. OKC. Before this I have lived in SF, where I exited 2 startups previously. This is the reason for my high net worth.
My assets:
1 house in OKC (zillow say worth 400k) we own with no mortgage.
1 house in SF (zillow say 3.1m) we own with no mortgage.
1 apartment in SF (zillow say worth 800k) we own but rent out for $3500/month
1 honda accord with 170k miles (no car note)
1 street triple motorcycle (roughly 6k)
1 ford mustang gt no note
1 tesla model x no note
800k in fidelity zero (i think? not 100% sure on the product)
400k in vanguard
400k liquid split in two accounts for FDIC
50k robinhood slush fund
10k in bitcoin
1m in current startup equity (2 years till vest, but it could go to 0, who knows)
My liabilities: 10k to my older sister who was the first investor in my first startup. i would like to pay her 10x this but she refuses to accept any money. does this count as a liability?
Current monthly budget:
$2000 internet (because I'm a remote worker this is vital for my job security. It's a 2gbps dedicated line with redundancy built in)
$1500 food
$2000 lawyer
$500 power
$500 gas
$1000 insurance combined
$200 phone combined
$1500 fun money
$1000 amazon gift cards for employee motivation
I think this is it. I'll add more if I forgot.
So my question is, how do I best prepare my (2) children for their financial future? I think I have a real opportunity to set them up for life. Which assets do I liquidate to do this? I am in the dark here.
How are my assets structured? How is my budget looking?
My financial knowledge comes from lurking here and occasionally talking to my companies CFO. I don't have a personal accountant or anything like that.
Thanks for the help!
submitted by scoffee99 to personalfinance [link] [comments]

It's crazy to realize that at the current price of $47, Dash would have a yearly funding budget of around 3.9 million dollars. Wow, just wow

submitted by OnesPerspective to dashpay [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - March 2018

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the fifteenth monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
And a lot has happened. It's easy to forget with so much focus on the price. Take a moment and scroll through the list below. You'll find an incredibly eventful month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in March 2018
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An extensive guide for cashing out bitcoin and cryptocurrencies into private banks

Hey guys.
Merry Xmas !
I am coming back to you with a follow up post, as I have helped many people cash out this year and I have streamlined the process. After my original post, I received many requests to be more specific and provide more details. I thought that after the amazing rally we have been attending over the last few months, and the volatility of the last few days, it would be interesting to revisit more extensively.
The attitude of banks around crypto is changing slowly, but it is still a tough stance. For the first partial cash out I operated around a year ago for a client, it took me months to find a bank. They wouldn’t want to even consider the case and we had to knock at each and every door. Despite all my contacts it was very difficult back in the days. This has changed now, and banks have started to open their doors, but there is a process, a set of best practices and codes one has to follow.
I often get requests from crypto guys who are very privacy-oriented, and it takes me months to have them understand that I am bound by Swiss law on banking secrecy, and I am their ally in this onboarding process. It’s funny how I have to convince people that banks are legit, while on the other side, banks ask me to show that crypto millionaires are legit. I have a solid background in both banking and in crypto so I manage to make the bridge, but yeah sometimes it is tough to reconcile the two worlds. I am a crypto enthusiast myself and I can say that after years of work in the banking industry I have grown disillusioned towards banks as well, like many of you. Still an account in a Private bank is convenient and powerful. So let’s get started.
There are two different aspects to your onboarding in a Swiss Private bank, compliance-wise.
*The origin of your crypto wealth
*Your background (residence, citizenship and probity)
These two aspects must be documented in-depth.
How to document your crypto wealth. Each new crypto millionaire has a different story. I may detail a few fun stories later in this post, but at the end of the day, most of crypto rich I have met can be categorized within the following profiles: the miner, the early adopter, the trader, the corporate entity, the black market, the libertarian/OTC buyer. The real question is how you prove your wealth is legit.
1. Context around the original amount/investment Generally speaking, your first crypto purchase may not be documented. But the context around this acquisition can be. I have had many cases where the original amount was bought through Mtgox, and no proof of purchase could be provided, nor could be documented any Mtgox claim. That’s perfectly fine. At some point Mtgox amounted 70% of the bitcoin transactions globally, and people who bought there and managed to withdraw and keep hold of their bitcoins do not have any Mtgox claim. This is absolutely fine. However, if you can show me the record of a wire from your bank to Tisbane (Mtgox's parent company) it's a great way to start.
Otherwise, what I am trying to document here is the following: I need context. If you made your first purchase by saving from summer jobs, show me a payroll. Even if it was USD 2k. If you acquired your first bitcoins from mining, show me the bills of your mining equipment from 2012 or if it was through a pool mine, give me your slushpool account ref for instance. If you were given bitcoin against a service you charged, show me an invoice.
2. Tracking your wealth until today and making sense of it. What I have been doing over the last few months was basically educating compliance officers. Thanks God, the blockchain is a global digital ledger! I have been telling my auditors and compliance officers they have the best tool at their disposal to lead a proper investigation. Whether you like it or not, your wealth can be tracked, from address to address. You may have thought all along this was a bad feature, but I am telling you, if you want to cash out, in the context of Private Banking onboarding, tracking your wealth through the block explorer is a boon. We can see the inflows, outflows. We can see the age behind an address. An early adopter who bought 1000 BTC in 2010, and let his bitcoin behind one address and held thus far is legit, whether or not he has a proof of purchase to show. That’s just common sense. My job is to explain that to the banks in a language they understand.
Let’s have a look at a few examples and how to document the few profiles I mentioned earlier.
The trader. I love traders. These are easy cases. I have a ton of respect for them. Being a trader myself in investment banks for a decade earlier in my career has taught me that controlling one’s emotions and having the discipline to impose oneself some proper risk management system is really really hard. Further, being able to avoid the exchange bankruptcy and hacks throughout crypto history is outstanding. It shows real survival instinct, or just plain blissed ignorance. In any cases traders at exchange are easy cases to corroborate since their whole track record is potentially available. Some traders I have met have automated their trading and have shown me more than 500k trades done over the span of 4 years. Obviously in this kind of scenario I don’t show everything to the bank to avoid information overload, and prefer to do some snacking here and there. My strategy is to show the early trades, the most profitable ones, explain the trading strategy and (partially expose) the situation as of now with id pages of the exchanges and current balance. Many traders have become insensitive to the risk of parking their crypto at exchange as they want to be able to trade or to grasp an occasion any minute, so they generally do not secure a substantial portion on the blockchain which tends to make me very nervous.
The early adopter. Provided that he has not mixed his coin, the early adopter or “hodler” is not a difficult case either. Who cares how you bought your first 10k btc if you bought them below 3$ ? Even if you do not have a purchase proof, I would generally manage to find ways. We just have to corroborate the original 30’000 USD investment in this case. I mainly focus on three things here:
*proof of early adoption I have managed to educate some banks on a few evidences specifically related to crypto markets. For instance with me, an old bitcointalk account can serve as a proof of early adoption. Even an old reddit post from a few years ago where you say how much you despise this Ripple premined scam can prove to be a treasure readily available to show you were early.
*story telling Compliance officers like to know when, why and how. They are human being looking for simple answers to simple questions and they don’t want like to be played fool. Telling the truth, even without a proof can do wonders, and even though bluffing might still work because banks don’t fully understand bitcoin yet, it is a risky strategy that is less and less likely to pay off as they are getting more sophisticated by the day.
*micro transaction from an old address you control This is the killer feature. Send a $20 worth transaction from an old address to my company wallet and to one of my partner bank’s wallet and you are all set ! This is gold and considered a very solid piece of evidence. You can also do a microtransaction to your own wallet, but banks generally prefer transfer to their own wallet. Patience with them please. they are still learning.
*signature message Why do a micro transaction when you can sign a message and avoid potentially tainting your coins ?
*ICO millionaire Some clients made their wealth participating in ETH crowdsale or IOTA ICO. They were very easy to deal with obviously and the account opening was very smooth since we could evidence the GENESIS TxHash flow.
The miner Not so easy to proof the wealth is legit in that case. Most early miners never took screenshot of the blocks on bitcoin core, nor did they note down the block number of each block they mined. Until the the Slashdot article from August 2010 anyone could mine on his laptop, let his computer run overnight and wake up to a freshly minted block containing 50 bitcoins back in the days. Not many people were structured enough to store and secure these coins, avoid malwares while syncing the blockchain continuously, let alone document the mined blocks in the process. What was 50 BTC worth really for the early miners ? dust of dollars, games and magic cards… Even miners post 2010 are generally difficult to deal with in terms of compliance onboarding. Many pool mining are long dead. Deepbit is down for instance and the founders are MIA. So my strategy to proof mining activity is as follow:
*Focusing on IT background whenever possible. An IT background does help a lot to bring some substance to the fact you had the technical ability to operate a mining rig.
*Showing mining equipment receipts. If you mined on your own you must have bought the hardware to do so. For instance mining equipment receipts from butterfly lab from 2012-2013 could help document your case. Similarly, high electricity bill from your household on a consistent basis back in the day could help. I have already unlocked a tricky case in the past with such documents when the bank was doubtful.
*Wallet.dat files with block mining transactions from 2011 thereafter This obviously is a fantastic piece of evidence for both you and me if you have an old wallet and if you control an address that received original mined blocks, (even if the wallet is now empty). I will make sure compliance officers understand what it means, and as for the early adopter, you can prove your control over these wallet through a microtransaction. With these kind of addresses, I can show on the block explorer the mined block rewards hitting at regular time interval, and I can even spot when difficulty level increased or when halvening process happened.
*Poolmining account. Here again I have educated my partner bank to understand that a slush account opened in 2013 or an OnionTip presence was enough to corroborate mining activity. The block explorer then helps me to do the bridge with your current wallet.
*Describing your set up and putting it in context In the history of mining we had CPU, GPU, FPG and ASICs mining. I will describe your technical set up and explain why and how your set up was competitive at that time.
The corporate entity Remember 2012 when we were all convinced bitcoin would take over the world, and soon everyone would pay his coffee in bitcoin? How naïve we were to think transaction fees would remain low forever. I don’t blame bitcoin cash supporters; I once shared this dream as well. Remember when we thought global adoption was right around the corner and some brick and mortar would soon accept bitcoin transaction as a common mean of payment? Well, some shop actually did accept payment and held. I had a few cases as such of shops holders, who made it to the multi million mark holding and had invoices or receipts to proof the transactions. If you are organized enough to keep a record for these trades and are willing to cooperate for the documentation, you are making your life easy. The digital advertising business is also a big market for the bitcoin industry, and affiliates partner compensated in btc are common. It is good to show an invoice, it is better to show a contract. If you do not have a contract (which is common since all advertising deals are about ticking a check box on the website to accept terms and conditions), there are ways around that. If you are in that case, pm me.
The black market Sorry guys, I can’t do much for you officially. Not that I am judging you. I am a libertarian myself. It’s just already very difficult to onboard legit btc adopters, so the black market is a market I cannot afford to consider. My company is regulated so KYC and compliance are key for me if I want to stay in business. Behind each case I push forward I am risking the credibility and reputation I have built over the years. So I am sorry guys I am not risking it to make an extra buck. Your best hope is that crypto will eventually take over the world and you won’t need to cash out anyway. Or go find a Lithuanian bank that is light on compliance and cooperative.
The OTC buyer and the libertarian. Generally a very difficult case. If you bought your stack during your journey in Japan 5 years ago to a guy you never met again; or if you accumulated on https://localbitcoins.com/ and kept no record or lost your account, it is going to be difficult. Not impossible but difficult. We will try to build a case with everything else we have, and I may be able to onboard you. However I am risking a lot here so I need to be 100% confident you are legit, before I defend you. Come & see me in Geneva, and we will talk. I will run forensic services like elliptic, chainalysis, or scorechain on an extract of your wallet. If this scan does not raise too many red flags, then maybe we can work together ! If you mixed your coins all along your crypto history, and shredded your seeds because you were paranoid, or if you made your wealth mining professionally monero over the last 3 years but never opened an account at an exchange. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ I am not a magician and don’t get me wrong, I love monero, it’s not the point.
Cashing out ICOs Private companies or foundations who have ran an ICO generally have a very hard time opening a bank account. The few banks that accept such projects would generally look at 4 criteria:
*Seriousness of the project Extensive study of the whitepaper to limit the reputation risk
*AML of the onboarding process ICOs 1.0 have no chance basically if a background check of the investors has not been conducted
*Structure of the moral entity List of signatories, certificate of incumbency, work contract, premises...
*Fiscal conformity Did the company informed the authorities and seek a fiscal ruling.
For the record, I am not into the tax avoidance business, so people come to me with a set up and I see if I can make it work within the legal framework imposed to me.
First, stop thinking Switzerland is a “offshore heaven” Swiss banks have made deals with many governments for the exchange of fiscal information. If you are a French citizen, resident in France and want to open an account in a Private Bank in Switzerland to cash out your bitcoins, you will get slaughtered (>60%). There are ways around that, and I could refer you to good tax specialists for fiscal optimization, but I cannot organize it myself. It would be illegal for me. Swiss private banks makes it easy for you to keep a good your relation with your retail bank and continue paying your bills without headaches. They are integrated to SEPA, provide ebanking and credit cards.
For information, these are the kind of set up some of my clients came up with. It’s all legal; obviously I do not onboard clients that are not tax compliant. Further disclaimer: I did not contribute myself to these set up. Do not ask me to organize it for you. I won’t.
EU tricks
Swiss lump sum taxation Foreign nationals resident in Switzerland can be taxed on a lump-sum basis if they are not gainfully employed in our country. Under the lump-sum tax regime, foreign nationals taking residence in Switzerland may choose to pay an expense-based tax instead of ordinary income and wealth tax. Attractive cantons for the lump sum taxation are Zug, Vaud, Valais, Grisons, Lucerne and Berne. To make it short, you will be paying somewhere between 200 and 400k a year and all expenses will be deductible.
Switzerland has adopted a very friendly attitude towards crypto currency in general. There is a whole crypto valley in Zug now. 30% of ICOs are operated in Switzerland. The reason is that Switzerland has thrived for centuries on banking secrecy, and today with FATCA and exchange of fiscal info with EU, banking secrecy is dead. Regulators in Switzerland have understood that digital ledger technologies were a way to roll over this competitive advantage for the generations to come. Switzerland does not tax capital gains on crypto profits. The Finma has a very pragmatic approach. They have issued guidance- updated guidelines here. They let the business get organized and operate their analysis on a case per case basis. Only after getting a deep understanding of the market will they issue a global fintech license in 2019. This approach is much more realistic than legislations which try to regulate everything beforehand.
Italy new tax exemption. It’s a brand new fiscal exemption. Go to Aoste, get residency and you could be taxed a 100k/year for 10years. Yes, really.
Portugal What’s crazy in Europe is the lack of fiscal harmonization. Even if no one in Brussels dares admit it, every other country is doing fiscal dumping. Portugal is such a country and has proved very friendly fiscally speaking. I personally have a hard time trusting Europe. I have witnessed what happened in Greece over the last few years. Some of our ultra high net worth clients got stuck with capital controls. I mean no way you got out of crypto to have your funds confiscated at the next financial crisis! Anyway. FYI
Malta Generally speaking, if you get a residence somewhere you have to live there for a certain period of time. Being stuck in Italy is no big deal with Schengen Agreement, but in Malta it is a different story. In Malta, the ordinary residence scheme is more attractive than the HNWI residence scheme. Being an individual, you can hold a residence permit under this scheme and pay zero income tax in Malta in a completely legal way.
Monaco Not suitable for French citizens, but for other Ultra High Net worth individual, Monaco is worth considering. You need an account at a local bank as a proof of fortune, and this account generally has to be seeded with at least EUR500k. You also need a proof of residence. I do mean UHNI because if you don’t cash out minimum 30m it’s not interesting. Everything is expensive in Monaco. Real Estate is EUR 50k per square meter. A breakfast at Monte Carlo Bay hotel is 70 EUR. Monaco is sunny but sometimes it feels like a golden jail. Do you really want that for your kids?
Dubaï
  1. Set up a company in Dubaï, get your resident card.
  2. Spend one day every 6 month there
  3. ???
  4. Be tax free
US tricks Some Private banks in Geneva do have the license to manage the assets of US persons and U.S citizens. However, do not think it is a way to avoid paying taxes in the US. Opening an account at an authorized Swiss Private banks is literally the same tax-wise as opening an account at Fidelity or at Bank of America in the US. The only difference is that you will avoid all the horror stories. Horror stories are all real by the way. In Switzerland, if you build a decent case and answer all the questions and corroborate your case in depth, you will manage to convince compliance officers beforehand. When the money eventually hits your account, it is actually available and not frozen.
The IRS and FATCA require to file FBAR if an offshore account is open. However FBAR is a reporting requirement and does not have taxes related to holding an account outside the US. The taxes would be the same if the account was in the US. However penalties for non compliance with FBAR are very large. The tax liability management is actually performed through the management of the assets ( for exemple by maximizing long term capital gains and minimizing short term gains).
The case for Porto Rico. Full disclaimer here. I am not encouraging this. Have not collaborated on such tax avoidance schemes. if you are interested I strongly encourage you to seek a tax advisor and get a legal opinion. I am not responsible for anything written below. I am not going to say much because I am so afraid of uncle Sam that I prefer to humbly pass the hot potato to pwc From here all it takes is a good advisor and some creativity to be tax free on your crypto wealth if you are a US person apparently. Please, please please don’t ask me more. And read the disclaimer again.
Trust tricks Generally speaking I do not accept fringe fiscal situation because it puts me in a difficult situation to the banks I work with, and it is already difficult enough to defend a legit crypto case. Trust might be a way to optimize your fiscal situation. Belize. Bahamas. Seychelles. Panama, You name it. At the end of the day, what matters for Swiss Banks are the beneficial owner and the settlor. Get a legal opinion, get it done, and when you eventually knock at a private bank’s door, don’t say it was for fiscal avoidance you stupid ! You will get the door smashed upon you. Be smarter. It will work. My advice is just to have it done by a great tax specialist lawyer, even if it costs you some money, as the entity itself needs to be structured in a professional way. Remember that with trust you are dispossessing yourself off your wealth. Not something to be taken lightly.
“Anonymous” cash out. Right. I think I am not going into this topic, neither expose the ways to get it done. Pm me for details. I already feel a bit uncomfortable with all the info I have provided. I am just going to mention many people fear that crypto exchange might become reporting entities soon, and rightly so. This might happen anyday. You have been warned. FYI, this only works for non-US and large cash out.
The difference between traders an investors. Danmark, Holland and Germany all make a huge difference if you are a passive investor or if you are a trader. ICO is considered investing for instance and is not taxed, while trading might be considered as income and charged aggressively. I would try my best to protect you and put a focus on your investor profile whenever possible, so you don't have to pay 52% tax if you do not have to :D
Full cash out or partial cash out? People who have been sitting on crypto for long have grown an emotional and irrational link with their coins. They come to me and say, look, I have 50m in crypto but I would like to cash out 500k only. So first let me tell you that as a wealth manager my advice to you is to take some off the table. Doing a partial cash out is absolutely fine. The market is bullish. We are witnessing a redistribution of wealth at a global scale. Bitcoin is the real #occupywallstreet, and every one will discuss crypto at Xmas eve which will make the market even more supportive beginning 2018, especially with all hedge funds entering the scene. If you want to stay exposed to bitcoin and altcoins, and believe these techs will change the world, it’s just natural you want to keep some coins. In the meantime, if you have lived off pizzas over the last years, and have the means to now buy yourself an nice house and have an account at a private bank, then f***ing do it mate ! Buy physical gold with this account, buy real estate, have some cash at hands. Even though US dollar is worthless to your eyes, it’s good and convenient to have some. Also remember your wife deserves it ! And if you have no wife yet and you are socially awkward like the rest of us, then maybe cashing out partially will help your situation ;)
What the Private Banks expect. Joke aside, it is important you understand something. If you come around in Zurich to open a bank account and partially cash out, just don’t expect Private Banks will make an exception for you if you are small. You can’t ask them to facilitate your cash out, buy a 1m apartment with the proceeds of the sale, and not leave anything on your current account. It won’t work. Sadly, under 5m you are considered small in private banking. The bank is ok to let you open an account, provided that your kyc and compliance file are validated, but they will also want you to become a client and leave some money there to invest. This might me despicable, but I am just explaining you their rules. If you want to cash out, you should sell enough to be comfortable and have some left. Also expect the account opening to last at least 3-4 week if everything goes well. You can't just open an account overnight.
The cash out logistics. Cashing out 1m USD a day in bitcoin or more is not so hard.
Let me just tell you this: Even if you get a Tier 4 account with Kraken and ask Alejandro there to raise your limit over $100k per day, Even if you have a bitfinex account and you are willing to expose your wealth there, Even if you have managed to pass all the crazy due diligence at Bitstamp,
The amount should be fractioned to avoid risking your full wealth on exchange and getting slaughtered on the price by trading big quantities. Cashing out involves significant risks at all time. There is a security risk of compromising your keys, a counterparty risk, a fat finger risk. Let it be done by professionals. It is worth every single penny.
Most importantly, there is a major difference between trading on an exchange and trading OTC. Even though it’s not publicly disclosed some exchange like Kraken do have OTC desks. Trading on an exchange for a large amount will weight on the prices. Bitcoin is a thin market. In my opinion over 30% of the coins are lost in translation forever. Selling $10m on an exchange in a day can weight on the prices more than you’d think. And if you trade on a exchange, everything is shown on record, and you might wipe out the prices because on exchanges like bitstamp or kraken ultimately your counterparties are retail investors and the market depth is not huge. It is a bit better on Bitfinex. It is way better to trade OTC. Accessing the institutional OTC market is not easy, and that is also the reason why you should ask a regulated financial intermediary if we are talking about huge amounts.
Last point, always chose EUR as opposed to USD. EU correspondent banks won’t generally block institutional amounts. However we had the cases of USD funds frozen or delayed by weeks.
Most well-known OTC desks are Cumberlandmining (ask for Lucas), Genesis (ask for Martin), Bitcoin Suisse AG (ask for Niklas), circletrade, B2C2, or Altcoinomy (ask for Olivier)
Very very large whales can also set up escrow accounts for massive block trades. This world, where blocks over 30k BTC are exchanged between 2 parties would deserve a reddit thread of its own. Crazyness all around.
Your options: DIY or going through a regulated financial intermediary.
Execution trading is a job in itself. You have to be patient, be careful not to wipe out the order book and place limit orders, monitor the market intraday for spikes or opportunities. At big levels, for a large cash out that may take weeks, these kind of details will save you hundred thousands of dollars. I understand crypto holders are suspicious and may prefer to do it by themselves, but there are regulated entities who now offer the services. Besides, being a crypto millionaire is not a guarantee you will get institutional daily withdrawal limits at exchange. You might, but it will take you another round of KYC with them, and surprisingly this round might be even more aggressive that the ones at Private banks since exchange have gone under intense scrutiny by regulators lately.
The fees for cashing out through a regulated financial intermediary to help you with your cash out should be around 1-2% flat on the nominal, not more. And for this price you should get the full package: execution/monitoring of the trades AND onboarding in a private bank. If you are asked more, you are being abused.
Of course, you also have the option to do it yourself. It is a way more tedious and risky process. Compliance with the exchange, compliance with the private bank, trading BTC/fiat, monitoring the transfers…You will save some money but it will take you some time and stress. Further, if you approach a private bank directly, it will trigger a series of red flag to the banks. As I said in my previous post, they call a direct approach a “walk-in”. They will be more suspicious than if you were introduced by someone and won’t hesitate to show you high fees and load your portfolio with in-house products that earn more money to the banks than to you. Remember also most banks still do not understand crypto so you will have a lot of explanations to provide and you will have to start form scratch with them!
The paradox of crypto millionaires Most of my clients who made their wealth through crypto all took massive amount of risks to end up where they are. However, most of them want their bank account to be managed with a low volatility fixed income capital preservation risk profile. This is a paradox I have a hard time to explain and I think it is mainly due to the fact that most are distrustful towards banks and financial markets in general. Many clients who have sold their crypto also have a cash-out blues in the first few months. This is a classic situation. The emotions involved in hodling for so long, the relief that everything has eventually gone well, the life-changing dynamics, the difficulties to find a new motivation in life…All these elements may trigger a post cash-out depression. It is another paradox of the crypto rich who has every card in his hand to be happy, but often feel a bit sad and lonely. Sometimes, even though it’s not my job, I had to do some psychological support. A lot of clients have also become my friends, because we have the same age and went through the same “ordeal”. First world problem I know… Remember, cashing out is not the end. It’s actually the beginning. Don’t look back, don’t regret. Cash out partially, because it does not make sense to cash out in full, regret it and want back in. relax.
The race to cash out crypto billionaire and the concept of late exiter. The Winklevoss brothers are obviously the first of a series. There will be crypto billionaires. Many of them. At a certain level you can have a whole family office working for you to manage your assets and take care of your needs . However, let me tell you it’s is not because you made it so big that you should think you are a genius and know everything better than anyone. You should hire professionals to help you. Managing assets require some education around the investment vehicles and risk management strategies. Sorry guys but with all the respect I have for wallstreebet, AMD and YOLO stock picking, some discipline is necessary. The investors who have made money through crypto are generally early adopters. However I have started to see another profile popping up. They are not early adopters. They are late exiters. It is another way but just as efficient. Last week I met the first crypto millionaire I know who first bough bitcoin over 1000$. 55k invested at the beginning of this year. Late adopter & late exiter is a route that can lead to the million.
Last remarks. I know banks, bankers, and FIAT currencies are so last century. I know some of you despise them and would like to have them burn to the ground. With compliance officers taking over the business, I would like to start the fire myself sometimes. I hope this extensive guide has helped some of you. I am around if you need more details. I love my job despite all my frustration towards the banking industry because it makes me meet interesting people on a daily basis. I am a crypto enthusiast myself, and I do think this tech is here to stay and will change the world. Banks will have to adapt big time. Things have started to change already; they understand the threat is real. I can feel the generational gap in Geneva, with all these old bankers who don’t get what’s going on. They glaze at the bitcoin chart on CNBC in disbelief and they start to get it. This bitcoin thing is not a joke. Deep inside, as an early adopter who also intends to be a late exiter, as a libertarian myself, it makes me smile with satisfaction.
Cheers. @swisspb on telegram
submitted by Swissprivatebanker to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - April 2019

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 28th monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in April 2019
Adoption
Development
Security
Mining
Business
Education
Archeology (Financial Incumbents)
Price & Trading
Fun & Other
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

November BTC Fork - The Facts

Update 2: THE NOVEMBER SEGWIT2X HARDFORK HAS NOW BEEN CANCELLED! :D
Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I thought I'd start gathering some facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate time = 16th of November - see Reference 6 for exact time.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The OPINIONs section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
  6. 2X Split Countdown
 
Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
submitted by tenmillionsterling to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

November Fork - The Facts

Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I thought I'd start gathering some facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate date = 16th of November.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The opinion section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
 
Update:
I recommend this article by a friend of mine who has been exploring various outcomes and their likelihood.  
Stay tuned for more content in the coming days.
submitted by tenmillionsterling to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Cash Fund website is now live! Go check it out!

THE BITCOIN CASH FUND
 
Firstly, we need to say a big thank you to you all for getting us this far. There is so much energy in the community right now. You guys are seriously awesome! You are by far the biggest asset to Bitcoin Cash, and this is what we need to leverage to take it mainstream.
 
You can find the website at www.thebitcoincash.fund
 
Go and check it out! Sign up to our subscriber list to get updates on the projects that we are funding. The projects we are funding always need volunteers to help them expand their reach.
 
 
We would like to announce our board, advisors and generous sponsors.
BOARD
 
Paul Wasensteiner (aka Singularity).
I have been a Bitcoiner (now Casher) since mid-2011 when I discovered Bitcoin shortly after the first $30 price bubble. Since then, I have been highly active in the community, although it wasn't until this year that I dove into Bitcoin full time. I started the BTCforks initiative last year with Freetrader, which was a precursor to the Bitcoin Cash initiative. Until recently, I spent my time in the community trying to correct misinformation and educate newcomers. After Bitcoin Cash successfully launched, I decided to make a positive change and instead put my energy into pushing Bitcoin Cash forward. I have a wide range of experience and expertise, and have had two businesses of my own in the past. I am working towards changing the world for the better, and I feel Bitcoin Cash is one way of achieving this. I launched the Bitcoin Cash Fund initiative on 14th, November 2017 to expand Bitcoin Cash adoption.
 
Ian Descôteaux (aka checksum0/FractalGlitch).
Ian found out about bitcoin on January 3rd, 2010 after reading a piece on it. He spent time CPU and GPU mining, both solo and with Mining Team Reddit and Slush. After a break from Bitcoin, he reinvested in mining when the Bitmain S1 was released, and has kept this endeavor going ever since. It was at this time that fees started to increase and he realised that this may become an issue in the future. Today he owns and operates a private 4 MW mining facility in North America. Bitcoin Cash is the plan he signed up for when he first got into the bitcoin space.
 
Haipo Yang
Haipo is the CEO and founder of ViaBTC. He graduated from Northwestern Polytechnical University of China in 2012, majored in mathematics. After graduation he worked as a developer at Tencent Weibo (China’s Twitter) and then FUTU, a Tencent-invested Hong Kong stock exchange. YANG is one of the earliest adopters and investors of Bitcoin and has in-depth understanding in blockchain technology. YANG began to be involved in Bitcoin in 2013. Between 2014 and 2015, YANG started his career in cryptocurrency industry and led the R&D team at ZeusMiner, the former TOP3 Scrypt miner in the world. In April 2016, YANG committed himself to the development of ViaBTC Bitcoin pool and released the initial version after two months of extensive coding effort.
 
 
ADVISORS
 
Roger Ver
Roger was an early investor in bitcoin related startups. He has been a prominent supporter of bitcoin adoption and saw bitcoin as a means to promote economic freedom. He now promotes Bitcoin Cash, a different cryptocurrency. He identifies as a libertarian, an anarcho-capitalist, peace advocate and advocates for individualism and voluntaryism.
 
Jack Liu
Jack C. Liu formerly served as Chief Strategy Officer of OKCoin Group, leading the company's international unit, and co-founding its latest products including OKEx and OKLink.
 
Peter Rizun
Dr. Peter Rizun is a physicist and entrepreneur. Chief Scientist for Bitcoin Unlimited, an organization which provides software that powers the backbone of the Bitcoin network. His research focuses on understanding and overcoming the bottlenecks preventing Bitcoin from scaling to a global peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
 
Mike Komaransky
Mike has been an investor and advocate of Bitcoin since 2010. Mike was a partner at the trading firm DRW, and was Head of Trading at Cumberland Mining from 2014 until June 2017.
 
 
SPONSORS
Bitcoin.com
Bitcoin.com is a premier source for everything Bitcoin related. They can help you buy bitcoins, choose a bitcoin wallet. You can also read the latest news, or engage with the community on their Bitcoin Forum.
 
ViaBTC
ViaBTC was founded in May 2016 as an innovation-intensive startup dedicated to cryptocurrency. They’ve developed the world’s top Bitcoin mining pool with the most advanced deployment technology. They’ve also released mining pools for competing coins and cloud mining products.
 
Yours
The mission at Yours is to improve the quality of content on the internet by getting people paid for creating and discovering good content. They're making everyone in the world an entrepreneur on their smartphone. They believe peer-to-peer payments are the missing piece in social media
 
 
PROJECTS
There are already a number of projects underway.
 
  • A short animated video explaining Bitcoin Cash.
  • A short live-action video explaining how a user uses BCH and, how a business uses/accepts BCH.
  • Project to travel around Seatac in the US with POS systems, information packs, and stickers to onboard new businesses.
  • Create a BCH logo animation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOS-4PxZi2o&lc=z23qwpqa4u2mxncqf04t1aokg0yj24dloirdqqxpeo1kbk0h00410) (Sound design still in progress).
  • Create payment sound branding to be applied as an industry standard for maximum impact.
  • Hand out well designed, fun Bitcoin Cash stickers for students to stick on their laptops and lockers etc.
  • Put up Bitcoin Cash flyers on all message boards at MIT.
  • Giving out free stickers on Twitter for tweets about Bitcoin Cash.
 
We need far far more though! Get in contact with us (Contact form on our website) and submit a proposal. Start organising! Put ideas out into the community and find people with the skills you need to execute! We are here to help you do this! Join our slack. Subscribe to bitcoincashmarketing and start developing projects.
 
There are so many talented people in the Bitcoin Cash community. You are our biggest asset BY FAR! This is why the Bitcoin Cash Fund is going to be so powerful at driving Bitcoin Cash adoption, because every BCH we push into the community, we know we will get 10 BCH of value, because you guys are amazing!
 
Our mission is to help Bitcoin Cash serve 1 billion users within 5 years, and we know you are going to help us achieve this.
 
Thank you again to you all.
The Bitcoin Cash Fund.
 
(Yours.org Post)[https://www.yours.org/content/the-bitcoin-cash-fund-website-is-now-live--go-check-it-out--ec40ae6792fd]
 
Also a big thank you to:
  • Cameron McEwan for designing and building the site from scratch with such a tight deadline.
  • Josh Ellithorpe (zquestz) for getting the site hosted and secured).
  • George Siosi Samuels for handling some of the social media accounts for us.
  • Kheri for handling some of the social media accounts for us.
submitted by singularity87 to btc [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - September 2018

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 21st monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in September 2018
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The November BTC Fork and Bitcoin Cash - The Facts

Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I have started gathering facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate date = 16th of November.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The opinion section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
 
submitted by tenmillionsterling to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

A whole new world

I’m a level 27 at the moment in game, I could never fathom why people would so brazenly ditch/loose gear in Tarkov. Until last night, when I said screw it, went into factory with fort, 6B helmet, and an m4. Long story short, I haven’t lost the gear yet, but what I have lost is my sense of gear fear. Anyone with gear fear; here’s my recommendation: yolo around, this game is incredibly movement oriented. Peekers advantage is a thing. Abuse it. Second: always try to get higher levels in factory. I don’t mean player levels, I mean you literally jump down and gun down whoever’s in tunnels Batman style. Third: run your scav on shoreline. All of today, when I’ve done a run, I’ve left as a scav with about 100-200k roubles worth of stuff to sell. Yes you will lag, yes it will suck, but this is the fastest means of having some fun in the game and building up a slush fund to fall back on. Lastly: if you haven’t, LEVEL MECHANIC ASAP. Even at level 2, one bitcoin will net you fort armor. There is a world of difference between fort and a paca. You have to experience it to believe it. If I can run shoreline with the minimum recommended specs, you can to. Happy hunting, now get out there and start getting technical.
submitted by Archer114897 to EscapefromTarkov [link] [comments]

So much Tether FUD. Finally some clear facts from Ari Pauil, an expert in the field. Read this to claim down your nerves about Tether!

There's so much FUD about Tether and it seems to have come from a few twitter accounts and mainstream media who feed on that stuff. Here's an industry expert's take on it.
Ari Paul on Tether (2/Feb/2018):
1/ The big tether tweetstorm: I get asked about tether constantly by reporters, investors, fellow fund managers, etc. I've avoided saying anything direct in public because I have no clear information.
2/ First the caveats. I have no clear information. I bring nothing new to the table in the discussion, all I can provide is how I've tried to make sense of the info I have. I also have a conflict of interest in that BlockTower is investoadviser to Trust Token, a competitor.
3/ What questions are we trying to answer: Is tether collateralized, and if so, is it fully backed by USD or by other assets? Is the printing of tether always in direct response to new USD inflows or is it a 'slush fund' of some sort?
4/ Has tether printing pushed up the price of Bitcoin or other assets? What are any risks of tether not covered by the above? And lastly, is tether a systemic risk to cryptocurrency markets or prices more broadly?
5/ What do we know? Very little for sure. We have very good reason to believe that Bitfinex (and the other exchanges that make use of USDT) have been insanely profitable over the past year. Ponzis don't usually occur in those scenarios.
6/ There is no available audit, and no way to confirm that assets backing it exist, and if they exist, that they are in a bank account that backs tether (as opposed to a more general purpose slush fund.)
7/ Mitigating this slightly is that some individuals report having seen tether representatives log in to bank web portals and show billions in USD in bank accounts.
8/ Detailed statistical analysis has been published showing that shortly after tether is printed, BTC tends to rise. This is used by some as evidence that tether is pushing up crypto prices. The simpler explanation is this:
9/ When people wire USD to various exchanges, they are credited with USDT, and they then purchase BTC and other cryptocurrencies. Thus the relationship of USDT printing followed by BTC rallies is not inherently suspicious in my eyes.
10/ The CFTC has subpoenaed Bitfinex and tether. This isn't evidence of anything in my eyes, since many large financial institutions are routinely subpoenaed. Simply having rumors published in the NYT about the situation could be enough to trigger an inquiry.
11/ I have heard from a half dozen individuals that have redeemed meaningful amounts of tether in the past couple months. Ponzis often allow some redemptions, so this is weak evidence in and of itself.
12/ The tiny number of market participants who have created or redeemed tether (or who have reported being unable to do so) seems strange at face value. I think it is because the redemption process is very unwieldy and involves creating managed accounts.
13/ We're half way through. To summarize the analysis so far: we don't know if tether is collateralized, but have little reason to suspect it's not: it's probably fully collateralized. The printing of tether is probably not artificially pushing up crypto prices.
14/ One source of concern is that the printing of tether seems unnatural - it occurs in very large discreet blocks. The simple explanation is that tether management (or bitfinex) is batching incoming USD to simplify things. We lack clarity on this process.
15/ What other concerns are there? Criminals use USD, EUR, prepaid debit cards, USDT, Bitcoin, and just about everything else to launder money. Most big banks have settled money laundering charges with the government.
16/ So it's likely that, like anything that can be used as money, USDT has been used for money laundering by someone at some point. When processing huge numbers of large monetary transfers, it's almost impossible to follow every regulation perfectly (as banks routinely learn).
17/ So one risk is that tether could be targeted by law enforcement or regulatory authorities for something related to fraud or money laundering, despite the best intentions of tether management.
18/ If only tether was targeted, the outcome might be confiscation of funds, legal or civil penalties. Fall-out may be very limited if, say, the penalty was a small fine, or larger if tether itself was shut down and assets seized or frozen.
19/ How might this become a systemic risk? The enforcement action could spread beyond tether to bitfinex, or possibly to other exchanges that list USDT on their platforms. I view the latter as very unlikely given the current regulatory climate.
20/ In conclusion, based on the limited information that I have, I think that: tether is probably fully collateralized by USD. Tether has probably not been artificially pushing up crypto prices. Tether probably does face a meaningful risk of adverse regulatory action. And -
21/ that regulatory action could be very minor (small fine), or more serious (shutting down of tether), with smaller risks of contagion to bitfinex broadly and other exchanges. I think the odds of tether meaningfully hurting the ecosystem is low.
Source: https://twitter.com/AriDavidPaul/status/959571893039878144
Also Tether issued a partial report back in Sept. Whilst its not a full audit, it does show TetheBitfinex have over $440mill in their bank account, which was approx the same amount of Tether's being issued around that time. Some of the fine print about auditing firm not taking any responsibility is just typical lawyer jargon to protect themselves: https://tether.to/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Final-Tether-Consulting-Report-9-15-17_Redacted.pdf
submitted by Geekkake to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Origins of the Blocksize Debate

On May 4, 2015, Gavin Andresen wrote on his blog:
I was planning to submit a pull request to the 0.11 release of Bitcoin Core that will allow miners to create blocks bigger than one megabyte, starting a little less than a year from now. But this process of peer review turned up a technical issue that needs to get addressed, and I don’t think it can be fixed in time for the first 0.11 release.
I will be writing a series of blog posts, each addressing one argument against raising the maximum block size, or against scheduling a raise right now... please send me an email ([email protected]) if I am missing any arguments
In other words, Gavin proposed a hard fork via a series of blog posts, bypassing all developer communication channels altogether and asking for personal, private emails from anyone interested in discussing the proposal further.
On May 5 (1 day after Gavin submitted his first blog post), Mike Hearn published The capacity cliff on his Medium page. 2 days later, he posted Crash landing. In these posts, he argued:
A common argument for letting Bitcoin blocks fill up is that the outcome won’t be so bad: just a market for fees... this is wrong. I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash.
...a permanent backlog would start to build up... as the backlog grows, nodes will start running out of memory and dying... as Core will accept any transaction that’s valid without any limit a node crash is eventually inevitable.
He also, in the latter article, explained that he disagreed with Satoshi's vision for how Bitcoin would mature[1][2]:
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy.
Gavin continued to publish the series of blog posts he had announced while Hearn made these predictions. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Matt Corallo brought Gavin's proposal up on the bitcoin-dev mailing list after a few days. He wrote:
Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this mailing list in several years as far as I can tell...
So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code simpler).
This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo
Shortly thereafter, Corallo explained further:
The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to continue to run in a decentralized manner.
Tier Nolan considered possible extensions and modifications that might improve Gavin's proposal and argued that soft caps could be used to mitigate against the dangers of a blocksize increase. Tom Harding voiced support for Gavin's proposal
Peter Todd mentioned that a limited blocksize provides the benefit of protecting against the "perverse incentives" behind potential block withholding attacks.
Slush didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and neither did Eric Lombrozo, though Eric was interested in developing hard-fork best practices and wanted to:
explore all the complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a one-off ad-hoc thing.
Matt Whitlock voiced his opinion:
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork... I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
Bryan Bishop strongly opposed Gavin's proposal, and offered a philosophical perspective on the matter:
there has been significant public discussion... about why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the road while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many excellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not referenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but feel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have been ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of discussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other subtle and extremely important technical details that are completely absent from this--and other-- proposals.
Secured decentralization is the most important and most interesting property of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be achieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional technology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical nature of the system we have constructed.
There's no doubt in my mind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the most extreme misunderstandings... for development purposes we must hold ourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes, especially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and economically unsafe.
There are many potential technical solutions for aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny bundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending transactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording every transaction, you could record the start state and the end state, and end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold, without modifying max block size and without potentially compromising secured decentralization.
The MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to measure decentralization and its security.. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial because we would have a more academic and technical understanding to work with.
Gregory Maxwell echoed and extended that perspective:
When Bitcoin is changed fundamentally, via a hard fork, to have different properties, the change can create winners or losers...
There are non-trivial number of people who hold extremes on any of these general belief patterns; Even among the core developers there is not a consensus on Bitcoin's optimal role in society and the commercial marketplace.
there is a at least a two fold concern on this particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous, decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective scarcity of capacity.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward...
tools like the Lightning network proposal could well allow us to hit a greater spectrum of demands at once--including secure zero-confirmation (something that larger blocksizes reduce if anything), which is important for many applications. With the right technology I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, but there needs to be a reason to build it; the security and decentralization level of Bitcoin imposes a hard upper limit on anything that can be based on it.
Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't possible today
the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk. Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available data and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use of Bitcoin; it's no big deal". Unfortunately, every indicator I can think of except fee totals has been going in the wrong direction almost monotonically along with the blockchain size increase since 2012 when we started hitting full blocks and responded by increasing the default soft target. This is frustrating
many people--myself included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin Core to increase the scalability. This work isn't small-potatoes boring software engineering stuff; I mean even my personal contributions include things like inventing a wholly new generic algebraic optimization applicable to all EC signature schemes that increases performance by 4%, and that is before getting into the R&D stuff that hasn't really borne fruit yet, like fraud proofs. Today Bitcoin Core is easily >100 times faster to synchronize and relay than when I first got involved on the same hardware, but these improvements have been swallowed by the growth. The ironic thing is that our frantic efforts to keep ahead and not lose decentralization have both not been enough (by the best measures, full node usage is the lowest its been since 2011 even though the user base is huge now) and yet also so much that people could seriously talk about increasing the block size to something gigantic like 20MB. This sounds less reasonable when you realize that even at 1MB we'd likely have a smoking hole in the ground if not for existing enormous efforts to make scaling not come at a loss of decentralization.
Peter Todd also summarized some academic findings on the subject:
In short, without either a fixed blocksize or fixed fee per transaction Bitcoin will will not survive as there is no viable way to pay for PoW security. The latter option - fixed fee per transaction - is non-trivial to implement in a way that's actually meaningful - it's easy to give miners "kickbacks" - leaving us with a fixed blocksize.
Even a relatively small increase to 20MB will greatly reduce the number of people who can participate fully in Bitcoin, creating an environment where the next increase requires the consent of an even smaller portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Where does that stop? What's the proposed mechanism that'll create an incentive and social consensus to not just 'kick the can down the road'(3) and further centralize but actually scale up Bitcoin the hard way?
Some developers (e.g. Aaron Voisine) voiced support for Gavin's proposal which repeated Mike Hearn's "crash landing" arguments.
Pieter Wuille said:
I am - in general - in favor of increasing the size blocks...
Controversial hard forks. I hope the mailing list here today already proves it is a controversial issue. Independent of personal opinions pro or against, I don't think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in nature. Either the result is effectively a fork, and pre-existing coins can be spent once on both sides (effectively failing Bitcoin's primary purpose), or the result is one side forced to upgrade to something they dislike - effectively giving a power to developers they should never have. Quoting someone: "I did not sign up to be part of a central banker's committee".
The reason for increasing is "need". If "we need more space in blocks" is the reason to do an upgrade, it won't stop after 20 MB. There is nothing fundamental possible with 20 MB blocks that isn't with 1 MB blocks.
Misrepresentation of the trade-offs. You can argue all you want that none of the effects of larger blocks are particularly damaging, so everything is fine. They will damage something (see below for details), and we should analyze these effects, and be honest about them, and present them as a trade-off made we choose to make to scale the system better. If you just ask people if they want more transactions, of course you'll hear yes. If you ask people if they want to pay less taxes, I'm sure the vast majority will agree as well.
Miner centralization. There is currently, as far as I know, no technology that can relay and validate 20 MB blocks across the planet, in a manner fast enough to avoid very significant costs to mining. There is work in progress on this (including Gavin's IBLT-based relay, or Greg's block network coding), but I don't think we should be basing the future of the economics of the system on undemonstrated ideas. Without those (or even with), the result may be that miners self-limit the size of their blocks to propagate faster, but if this happens, larger, better-connected, and more centrally-located groups of miners gain a competitive advantage by being able to produce larger blocks. I would like to point out that there is nothing evil about this - a simple feedback to determine an optimal block size for an individual miner will result in larger blocks for better connected hash power. If we do not want miners to have this ability, "we" (as in: those using full nodes) should demand limitations that prevent it. One such limitation is a block size limit (whatever it is).
Ability to use a full node.
Skewed incentives for improvements... without actual pressure to work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while - while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on the entire ecosystem.
Fees and long-term incentives.
I don't think 1 MB is optimal. Block size is a compromise between scalability of transactions and verifiability of the system. A system with 10 transactions per day that is verifiable by a pocket calculator is not useful, as it would only serve a few large bank's settlements. A system which can deal with every coffee bought on the planet, but requires a Google-scale data center to verify is also not useful, as it would be trivially out-competed by a VISA-like design. The usefulness needs in a balance, and there is no optimal choice for everyone. We can choose where that balance lies, but we must accept that this is done as a trade-off, and that that trade-off will have costs such as hardware costs, decreasing anonymity, less independence, smaller target audience for people able to fully validate, ...
Choose wisely.
Mike Hearn responded:
this list is not a good place for making progress or reaching decisions.
if Bitcoin continues on its current growth trends it will run out of capacity, almost certainly by some time next year. What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the available time window.
I no longer believe this community can reach consensus on anything protocol related.
When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be fee pressure that funds mining
What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing.
Peter Todd then pointed out that, contrary to Mike's claims, developer consensus had been achieved within Core plenty of times recently. Btc-drak asked Mike to "explain where the 12 months timeframe comes from?"
Jorge Timón wrote an incredibly prescient reply to Mike:
We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals already. I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there should be consensus about them. If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm ears. I just hope that by "What we need to see right now is leadership" you don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
Oh, so your answer to "bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees and we would like to know more about how it will look like then" it's "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the future so let's just worry about the present". I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a similar situation to be able to predict that future better. What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
this is my plan: we wait 12 months... and start having full blocks and people having to wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times. That would be the beginning of a true "fee market", something that Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening). Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage. What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and obvious. I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon. But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.
Some suspected Gavin/Mike were trying to rush the hard fork for personal reasons.
Mike Hearn's response was to demand a "leader" who could unilaterally steer the Bitcoin project and make decisions unchecked:
No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadership
I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size limit... I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment...
we need to hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say around here.
Jorge Timón responded:
it is true that "universally uncontroversial" (which is what I think the requirement should be for hard forks) is a vague qualifier that's not formally defined anywhere. I guess we should only consider rational arguments. You cannot just nack something without further explanation. If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your nack because it makes no sense". In the same way, when people use fallacies (purposely or not) we must expose that and say "this fallacy doesn't count as an argument". But yeah, it would probably be good to define better what constitutes a "sensible objection" or something. That doesn't seem simple though.
it seems that some people would like to see that happening before the subsidies are low (not necessarily null), while other people are fine waiting for that but don't want to ever be close to the scale limits anytime soon. I would also like to know for how long we need to prioritize short term adoption in this way. As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the most important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa. But yeah, this is progress, I'll wait for your more detailed description of the tragedies that will follow hitting the block limits, assuming for now that it will happen in 12 months. My previous answer to the nervous "we will hit the block limits in 12 months if we don't do anything" was "not sure about 12 months, but whatever, great, I'm waiting for that to observe how fees get affected". But it should have been a question "what's wrong with hitting the block limits in 12 months?"
Mike Hearn again asserted the need for a leader:
There must be a single decision maker for any given codebase.
Bryan Bishop attempted to explain why this did not make sense with git architecture.
Finally, Gavin announced his intent to merge the patch into Bitcoin XT to bypass the peer review he had received on the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The B Foundation. What some of us don't like about it / why we fight.

You might have noticed there is a flamewar going on on Twitter about "The B", aka Bitcoin Foundation 2.0 aka "we are not a Bitcoin Foundation!".
I would like to clarify some of the criticism we are giving:

1- The name.
The B Foundation, especially with the Bitcoin logo as the "B", was definitely of bad taste. Even if it was a joke or trolling, there was no way it would have been accepted. This is not the main criticism, but an obvious one.

2- The people.
Basically, The B lists the best people on crypto-twitter today, but more importantly very heavy-weight in the industry itself. Adam Back, Slush, Giacomo, Starkness, Jameson Lopp, .... an amazing and very respected group of individuals. None of the criticism is against the individuals, but against the group itself. Why is there a need for such an "authority" (as in respect, not as in control)? Does The B need to place itself as THE foundation? This would be the major criticism, media and newcomers will see this group as the representative of Bitcoin. Or at the very least as the representative of the ecosystem and industry. But people change, interest and alignment of ideology change too. Remember Gavin? Remember Bitpay? even Roger Ver. These were the face of Bitcoin at some point. Why would we create an even bigger figure? Another remainder would be The Bitcoin Foundation, set up with good intentions and with public figures too, and ended up being a scam. Did you know they still receive donations from major companies that believe they are funding Bitcoin development?

3- "Marketing and PR".
This is a very contentious point, and comes back to what is Bitcoin. Should we make it mainstream (that seems to be the goal of The B) now? If this is the case, The B and the community will again be under pressure for scaling, speed, costs... and all of those will come at a cost in censorship resistance if we rush it. Now imagine this Marketing and Public Relations entity also is responsible of funding the developers... what could go wrong? oh wait, that's what The B is about.

4- Do we need it?
Many organizations are funding developers, and we should all participate. Blockstream, BHB, Lightning Labs, Trezor... all support developers. The stated goal of The B is to facilitate the administrative burden to fund devs. It totally makes sense, any central entity will be more efficient than a decentralized counterpart. The problem will be to get rid of it when the time comes, so far we haven't been able to get rid of the previous ones.

What do people arguing want then?
Well first of all there should not be a politically strong entity representing (though marketing or whatever) "Bitcoin". It's perfectly fine and encouraged to create alliances and teams, but these should not create a legacy that can become a threat (like Bitcoin(dot)com, the Bitcoin Foundation, etc). A great execution of this is Bitcoin Core: it's not a legal entity, is always changing and is kept sane by being under attack and scrutiny all the time. Other examples would be the No2X movement, UASF, and others that gathered people for when it was needed, but didn't end up with becoming any "authority" in the space, only an idea/ideology.
A list of ALL THINGS to respect would be:
- Don't call yourself or behave anything like a (shitcoin) foundation. Slush pointed out that it's necessary in the legal name, great, but not in the material as far as I know. If we wanted a funding and marketing foundation, we would be on Ethereum.
- Don't promote The B as a group of all the top people. This would have the same effect as being perceived as a Bitcoin Foundation, as a de-facto authority.
- Don't centralize the public relations AND funding, under any circumstances. The pressure would be unbearable for the entity.
- DO offer solutions for grants, education, research, but maybe as separate entities each.
- Have a board, but not of "the whole industry", especially if we don't know how they are chosen/"elected". And even more if you don't need it. (Why do you need all these people in such an organization anyways, if the goal is not governance of Bitcoin???)

The risk is not what The B would be today, but what it could become tomorrow. Is the reward worth the risk? I really don't think so. Rushing for solution might come back an hunt us for a very long time, so let's argument and find a better solution.
submitted by Chainsmiths_Kevin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A collection of evidence regarding Bitcoin's takeover and problems.

REPOSTED THIS FOR MORE VISIBILITY & FEW EDITS
On November 22 I posted this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7eszwk/links_related_to_blockstreams_takeover_of_bitcoin
On December this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7mg4tm/updated_dec_2017_a_collection_of_evidence/
On January this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7qfw2b/a_collection_of_evidence_regarding_bitcoins/
This is March update
I will be removing duplicates and off-topic content. #34 and #74 has been changed. Please give me feed back, and also recommend a new title if you guys have any idea :)
The Bitcoin Whitepaper
PDF
1 The history between btc and bitcoin
Archive link
yours.org link
2 A brief and incomplete history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Archive link
3 User posts on bitcoin about 6900 BTC that theymos stole, post gets removed.
Archive link
4 Go to /noncensored_bitcoin to see posts that have been censored in /bitcoin
5 Theymos caught red-handed - why he censors all the forums he controls, including /bitcoin
Archive link
6 User gets banned from /bitcoin for saying "A $5 fee to send $100 is absolutely ridiculous"
Archive link
7 Greg Maxwell caught using sockpuppets
Archive link
8 [Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively"](https:// np.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/)
Archive link
9 Remember how lightening network was promised to be ready by summer 2016? https://coinjournal.net/lightning-network-should-be-ready-this-summe
Archive link
10 rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains
Archive link
11 "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO
Archive link
Twitter proof
Twitter Archive link
12 September 2017 stats post of bitcoin censorship
Archive link
13 Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
Archive link
14 bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
Archive link
15 In January 2017, someone paid 0.23 cents for 1 transaction. As of December 2017, fees have peaked $40.
16 Told to kill yourself by Bitcoin for cashing out
17 Bitcoin is a captured system
18 Bot attack against bitcoin was allegedly perpetrated by its own moderator and Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell
19 Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".
20 Bitcoin Cash has got nothing new.
21 How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC
More evidence
22 Even Core developers used to support 8-100MB blocks before they work for the Bankers
Proof
23 /Bitcoin loves to call Bitcoin Cash "ChinaCoin", but do they realize that over 70% of BTC hashrate comes from China?
24 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
25 First, they said they want BCH on coinbase so they could dump it. Now they are crying about it because it's pumping.
26 Luke-Jr thinks reducing the blocksize will reduce the fees..
27 Core: Bitcoin isn't for the poor. Bitcoin Cash: we'll take them. Our fees are less than a cent. Core: BCash must die!
28 How The Banks Bought Bitcoin. The Lightning Network
29 Big Blocks Can Scale, But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
30 "Fees will drop when everyone uses Lightning Networks" is the new "Fees will drop when SegWit is activated"
31 Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls
32 The bitcoin civil war is not about block size; it's about freedom vs. authoritarianism
33 Why BCH is the real Bitcoin
34 Segwit does not block ASICBoost. SlushPool supports it.
35 We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
36 Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.
37 A explaination why Core's vision is different from the real Bitcoin vision
38 The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
39 Lighting Network was supposed to be released in 2016
40 You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction
41 They say we are trying to Kill Bitcoin. No, we are not. We are trying to save it, and make it usable for everyone, and everything. Not tomorrow. Not 6 months from now, Not 18 Months from now. NOW. That's what's going on Here.
42 Miners that want to pull out daily have to switch to BCH due to the fees
43 At $25 #BTC tx fees, if miners want to withdraw their revenue daily, they require a minimum of $140,000 worth of mining hardware to reduce the tx fee to less than 1% of their outgoings. At a $100 tx fee it requires min $560,000. Which is the centralising coin again?
44 Core developer : Bitcoin fees too high? You have invested in early tech! Have faith. Give us time.
45 A redditor even predicted the /bitcoin front page
46 Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s
47 /bitcoin is in uproar about Coinbase not implementing Segwit -> mempool mooning is single handedly Coinbase' fault. So all it takes to bring bitcoin to its knees is a single corporate entity not implementing segwit? Me thinks its not Coinbase there's something wrong with.
48 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
49 $BCH has been attacked in every way possible since it's creation. Exchanges listing it with deceiving names and abbreviations; being dumped by bitcoin holders for over 6 months; and it still managed to close every month positively, while adding numerous new wallet/exchange pairs
50 theymos claims that the whitepaper is a historical artifact not worthy of being on the sidebar of bitcoin
51 Even a Bitcoin conference can't use Bitcoin because of it's high fees
52 185% Growth in Active Addresses for BCH in 1 month, 125% for ETH, -5% for BTC
53 Shapeshift: "Sub-$100 fees unadvisable on BTC." Core supporters: "Implement Segwit already!" Shapeshift: "We did. We're the biggest user of Segwit."
54 How btc and Bitcoin see each other
55 Man who vandalized Bitmain's office hired by Blockstream
56 Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin Core compared. Just the facts
57 It was obvious from the very beginning that #Bitcoin transactions were meant to be as cheap as possible. Bitcoin Core has destroyed Bitcoin's usefulness as money by creating a system where $30 fees are celebrated. - @Bitcoin
58 User explains why Core's vision is not the real Bitcoin vision
59 Fake Tweet from the president bashes BCH on /bitcoin front page. Calling it exactly what it is will get you banned.
60 A public appeal to Michael Marquardt the original Theymos.
61 Now they are angry at the CEO of Coinbase for supporting BCH. It's like you are not allowed to have your own opinion without getting attacked.
62 bitcoin user says Bitcoin should not be used as a cryptocurrency
63 The five stages of grief, transaction fees
64 A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be
65 Warning! Theymos admitted he 'misled millions of people' yet he wanna 'leave the text as it is' to mislead more people!
66 "Wait. What? My private keys need to be on an internet-connected computer in order to use Lightning Network?"
67 a year ago Adam Back accused u/Jacktenz of exaggerated claims about fees. The truth is the claims were understated!
68 Roger Ver was not selling explosives, he was selling firecrackers.
69 Core devs pop champaigne, and openly celebrate high fees. Now core supporters blame coinbase for high fees?
70 Now that we've had a few 8MB blocks, let's dispel this centralisation myth once and for all.
71 Reddit admin sodypop on censorship in /Bitcoin: "We generally allow moderators to run their communities how they like as long as they are within our site-wide rules and moderator guidelines." Blatant censorship, hacking, vote manipulation, and brigading are "within [Reddit's] site-wide rules".
72 Another obvious sockpuppet account being used to push Blockstream's agenda.
73 Totally organic grassroots support for the #NO2X "movement." Definitely not a purchased sockpuppet account, you guys.
74 Why Bitcoin Cash
75 If it’s inaccessible to the poor it’s neither radical nor revolutionary.
76 BSCoretabs shills are vandalizing Wikipedia to smear Roger Ver with false quoting, missparaphrasing and accusations.
77 Introducing dipshit extraordinaire Warren Togami, the link between Theymos and BlockStream
78 Debunking: "Blockstream is 3 or 4 developers out of hundreds of developers at Core" - Tone Vays
79 This blockchain debate is purely political and is not about scaling but about control. X-Post from /bitcoin
80 A profile to look at for more evidence
81 What exactly is Blockstream Core's excuse for causing a year of stagnation in Bitcoin with no end in sight?
82 We have a way to build bank-like services.
83 "There is a reason why things are done in a certain way in the financial system, and Bitcoin will be doing something similar"
84 Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.
85 Theymos on Bitcoin XT
86 (If this is not allowed mods, please remove this text) I cannot verify this yet, but a source has given me information about theymos. theymos is known as Michael Marquardt, from Wisconsin and is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin as a computer-science student.
87 A video that Blockstream does not want you to see
88 A story of how someone was brainwashed
89 Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin
90 What /btc is up against
91 OpenBazaar dev explains why they won't implement Lightning Network
92 An extended history of Bitcoin Cash
93 Should I trust Bitcoin Cash ? Roger Ver seems shady
94 /btc gets brigaded and blackmailed
95 Bitcoin Core talking points translated honestly
96 Possible attacks on Bitcoin. One of them did happen
97 How many people are aware that Bitcoin Cash is a manipulation made by Roger Ver, CNBC and Coinbase?
98 Why Rick Falkvinge chose Bitcoin Cash
More from Rick
99 Can Bitcoin Cash scale on-chain?
100 Are bigger blocks better for bigger miners?
101 Jonald Fyookball corrects the misinformation
102 A developer, Luke-Jr, in the Core team is crazy
Thanks to singularity87, 103 to 106. There are more in his link
103 Using the HK agreement to stall miners from adopting bitcoin classic
104 Luke-Jr would be fine with having Jihan Wu executed
105 Theymos threatens to write to the SEC
106 Matt Corallo writes to the SEC to make Core’s BTC the “official” btc.
107 Re: BCH as an altcoin
108 The difference between BTC and BCH
109 Someone asks why Bitcoin Core refuses to increase the blocksize
110 Bitcoin back then : 1, 2, 3, 4
111 More resources
submitted by thepaip to btc [link] [comments]

Btcguild shutting down.

After many months of consideration, I have finally made the choice to announce the planned closure of BTC Guild. Below, I've outlined the closure process/timeline and reasons that this decision was made.
Closure Timeframe and Process As identified in the support section and in the 2nd post on this thread, BTC Guild has had an official policy for the amount of time that will be given in the event of closure. The official date that BTC Guild will cease all business is January 31, 2015. This post is the start of the identified 3 months of warning.
1) Effective immediately, registrations are closed to new users. 2) BTC Guild mining servers will remain online until November 30, 2014. 3) Users will have until 11:59 PM (PST) on January 31, 2015 to withdraw any remaining balances on their account.
The above timeline may change if BTC Guild is sold prior to the planned date of closure.
Main Reasons for Closure 1) Risk/cost of a successful attack against the pool. As pooled mining in general is shrinking due to large manufacturers creating private farms, the potential revenue for the pool has gone down as expected. While the pool is still very profitable, the amount of time it would take to recover from an attack has increased due to the overall share of the network shrinking.
BTC Guild has, to date, never been successfully hacked. However, I have seen a rise in attack attempts, and things like Heartbleed/Shellshock which show that efforts are being put into compromising common Linux services if possible. Neither of those attacks had any affect on BTC Guild, but they were both reminders that under BTC Guild's own code, there are many services which could be a doorway into the pool's servers if a vulnerability was discovered.
One successful attack could cost close to a year of pool revenue, maybe more depending on what happens in the mining landscape over that period of time. If something else happened in that time (subsequent attack or regulation forcing closure), it would mean continuing to operate the pool beyond this point has cost me more money than it might potentially make in the rest of its lifetime.
2) US government/regulators are already taking stances against specific business types in Bitcoin, applying requirements which would be impossible for BTC Guild to operate under if they attempt to extend regulation into pooled mining, either directly or indirectly due to unclear definitions. Nobody will mine on a pool which requires them to provide personally identifiable information when they can change a single line in their configuration to point elsewhere.
Additionally, state regulators are starting to make noise about Bitcoin. New York is the first to publicly put anything forward, but there are 49 other states which can put their own spin on things. Due to the ability for states to establish a nexus for businesses dealing with their state's residents, it is a scary landscape to continue operating in.
I have no intention of leaving the US myself, and given the recent history of the US when it comes to online businesses, I don't feel safe simply moving the business legal entity to another country while continuing to live in the US myself.
Aquisition and Users's Privacy/Funds In the event that BTC Guild is acquired prior to closure, users will not have their mining history and withdrawal history transferred to the new owner. All balances up to the date of aquisition will be retained by myself, and a separate service will be made available to claim any funds owed. I am unwilling to compromise on this, because I refuse to do anything where it puts the users of the pool at risk of not receiving what they've earned under my watch.
Pool Recommendations and Advice For users looking for a new home for their miners, I highly recommend BitMinter, Eligius, and p2pool. I do not recommend Slush over any of those 3 options, and I actively encourage users to not use Discus Fish or GHash.io. Other smaller pools exist which are run by honest people, but due to their size, it is difficult to recommend them to the average miner.
Closing Words When I got into Bitcoin back in March of 2011, I never expected anything that we've seen over the last 3 and a half years. I had never built a computer before, never run a server beyond a Gentoo PC in a spare bedroom, and never setup a website that experienced even 0.1% of the traffic BTC Guild gets on an average day.
Bitcoin and BTC Guild have both radically changed my life. While I am closing BTC Guild, I still plan to remain a part of the Bitcoin community. I do believe, even in the face of over-regulation, that Bitcoin will continue to grow and become more useful and usable. I just feel that it is time to move on from BTC Guild, and take pride in the fact that BTC Guild's closure can show that not all Bitcoin businesses end with somebody stealing funds from their users, either by "getting hacked" or outright theft.
submitted by TerreCiel to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

GHash.IO & double spending

Some of this data is from bitcointalk, I'll attribute the authors as I go

TL;DR:

Put on your thinking cap:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate

"getblocktemplate moves block creation to the miner, while giving pools a way to set down the rules for participation. While pools can do just as much as they could before by expressing it in these rules, miners can not be kept in the dark and are enabled to freely choose what they participate in mining. This improves the security of the Bitcoin network by making blocks decentralized again."
A risk that is difficult to assess is whether the large mining pools validate coinbase tx content included by miners in their pool.
(To test, you "just" need to be the member of a pool who successfully solves a block; and also write a custom miner to include a specific coinbase tx that the pool did not ask you to provide. (Credit to bee7 here for this idea).
It's possible that the GHash.IO operators control (or are colluding with) a significant portion of the mining capacity of Elgius and Slush (I picked those two pools because of their abysmal orphan (luck) rate); This hypothesis is supported by the data in this post.
There are, of course, other very reasonable explanations for the "luck variance" observation:
...but there is also additional circumstantial evidence that GHash.IO have bad actors:

Credit to mmitech for this next bit of research:

In September I witnessed a lot of double-spending against BetCoin Dice. It happened between 25th and 27th Sept.
The mechanism was simple: send betcoin a tx with 0 fee, then wait for a result tx, if your bet is a win, then confirm your tx, otherwise double-spend it.
  1. Here I'll give you a bunch of transactions which you can examine. Note this is a chain of transactions, so just click on outputs to see. https://blockchain.info/tx/4d731074447f02609c3110a187f9c6976f2bf255288ec5666ee270f09679619d https://blockchain.info/tx/e0b44f68441ea0bad0f7694f735f496ce05238862534c6fea737b8903921185a The double-spending of losing bets was performed by someone mining to https://blockchain.info/address/1MA7CKbWMyKdPkmsbnwmfeLh1hYy5A3gy8 , you can check it yourself.
  2. I tracked coins down to the origin https://blockchain.info/tx/154ecb1eb72c933bc0707fa70deceb688361554ab81b901673d308aa84d9cfe9 The most interesting address here is 12PcHjajFJmDqz28yv4PEvBF4aJiFMuTFD It's been involved in similar actions, look at this chain of win-only tx's https://blockchain.info/tx/0c1a08d035862b01d075e8044b1e9ce52a8ad951b57d876a2a9a0e3502c41eb0 And the most interesting fact is that these zero-fee tx's inbetween winning ones were mined by ghash.io exclusively. Possibly this was a test attack.
  3. Going further, I found the address the earnings from attack were sent to: 12e8322A9YqPbGBzFU6zXqn7KuBEHrpAAv https://blockchain.info/tx/292e7354fbca1847f0cbdc87a7d62bc37e58e8b6fa773ef4846b959f28c42910 And then part of these funds (125 BTC) was sent to ghash.io's mining address: https://blockchain.info/tx/48168cf655d0ac0c7c2733288ca72e69ecd515a9a0ab2821087eb33deb7c6962
  4. Furthermore, I checked the funds mined to 1MA7CKbWMyKdPkmsbnwmfeLh1hYy5A3gy8 In these 2 succeeding tx's they were moved to 199kVcHrLdouz9k9iW3jh1kpL7j9nLg7pn https://blockchain.info/tx/e567ad6232de5285e0dc211d3f1c489b1e00e509118ba98a4825529d0a9197d9 https://blockchain.info/tx/faa7bc8b99376efa774045e79b42771fe668341b00290a61cd416992571c590d
This address is interesting, because it contains 6000 BTC and ~30% of funds come from ghash.io mining address. https://blockchain.info/taint/199kVcHrLdouz9k9iW3jh1kpL7j9nLg7pn
  1. And the last thing to spot: GHash.io, being about 25% of network back then, didn't find a single block to its address between 25th and 27th of september! https://blockchain.info/address/1CjPR7Z5ZSyWk6WtXvSFgkptmpoi4UM9BC?offset=1350&filter=2
Ok smarties: Any other thoughts/theories/criticisms to these hypotheses? Post below if you're considering changing pools now.
2014-Jun-03 11:18PM PDT edit: Fixed formatting issues
2014-Jun-03 11:25PM PDT edit: Clarified negative effect in TL;DR
2014-Jun-04 01:40PM PDT edit: Clarified point about pool hopping
submitted by bullshbit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash Rockets 15% Despite Big Tax Drama - YouTube Trudeau's Secret 7 BILLION DOLLAR Slush Fund! - What You ... Ooops Calling Senator Warren About Her Slush Fund ! It Appears President Trump Dismantled Another Slush Fund !

Satoshi Nakamoto’s Whitepaper Introducing Bitcoin; Bitcoin for Business Accepting Bitcoin; Advertise with Bitcoin; Bitcoin for People; Bitcoin Charities List; Fun and Useful; Bitcoin Deals and Discounts; Sign in. Welcome! Log into your account. your username. your password. Forgot your password? Create an account. Sign up. Welcome! Register for an account. your email. your username. A ... slush fund definition: 1. an amount of money that is kept for dishonest or illegal activities in politics or business: 2…. Learn more. Bitcoin; News; Altcoins. Should history rhyme, XRP may surge after XLM’s rally on Samsung… Key data takeaways from Chainlink’s rally to a new all-time high… After Ethereum tokens surge, veteran trader Peter Brandt asks if Stellar… Bitcoin’s trading volume is shifting towards altcoins as BTC flatlines. After 500% rally, Chainlink (LINK) just passed Ethereum in this crucial ... REUTERS/Brendan McDermid. Democrats in the Senate attacked a key part of the $1.8 trillion stimulus bill as a "slush fund" to bail out America's largest corporations during the coronavirus pandemic. The Fed also created a $450 billion slush fund for Wall Street execs and the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), a Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), and a Secondary Market ...

[index] [48048] [21714] [49713] [17598] [4875] [7144] [27796] [30634] [7012] [41268]

Bitcoin Cash Rockets 15% Despite Big Tax Drama - YouTube

This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Federal lawsuit https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GRWen3cigx7x4o0TvDemzoTPiuHPyVSu/view?usp=sharing Sen Warren http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/busted-... Skip navigation Sign in. Search This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue Josh Sigurdson talks with author and economic analyst John Sneisen about the recent developments uncovered showing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is ...

#