Vinny Lingham Warns Of 'At Least' 3-6 Months Of Bitcoin ...

Vinny Lingham:"If things get tougher this month and Bitcoin can’t hold the Feb 6 bottom, there is a chance that ETH will rally instead and permanently decouple from BTC, along with other alts. If BTC can’t store value, then the market will probably find another way...".

Vinny Lingham: submitted by money78 to btc [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham:"Assuming the Bitcoin [Core] price doesn’t recover soon, at what price point would you stop believing in the “Store of Value without Itility“ narrative?"

Vinny Lingham: submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

"Phase 1 of Bitcoin (2008-2016) = Creating a Digital Commodity. Phase 2 = Proving it as a Store of Value. Phase 3 = Adopting it as a Currency" | Vinny Lingham on Twitter

submitted by finalhedge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Finding Equilibrium: Searching for the true value of a Bitcoin [Opinion piece by Vinny Lingham, CEO of gyft]

Vinny Lingham, CEO of gyft, has written an interesting piece discussing his ideas on why the price is currently where it is and where he thinks it is going from here. One of his insights is that he thinks the price has dropped because merchant adoption is outpacing consumer adoption and merchants are selling the vast majority of coins they receive on exchanges just at the point when many buyers have become spooked about buying on exchanges.
Finding Equilibrium: Searching for the true value of a Bitcoin
submitted by packetinspector to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham:"Assuming the Bitcoin [Core] price doesnt recover soon, at what price point would you stop believing in the Store of Value without Itility narrative?"

Vinny Lingham: submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham:"Assuming the Bitcoin [Core] price doesnt recover soon, at what price point would you stop believing in the Store of Value without Itility narrative?"

Vinny Lingham: submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham:"If things get tougher this month and Bitcoin cant hold the Feb 6 bottom, there is a chance that ETH will rally instead and permanently decouple from BTC, along with other alts. If BTC cant store value, then the market will probably find another way...".

Vinny Lingham: submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"Phase 1 of Bitcoin (2008-2016) = Creating a Digital Commodity. Phase 2 = Proving it as a Store of Value. Phase 3 = Adopting it as a Currency" | Vinny Lingham on Twitter

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [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]

While everybody is closely watching South Korea, these are coins worth investing in. (imo)

  1. Vertcoin (VTC)
Vertcoin is a digital currency that can be sent between people over the internet. Vertcoin (VTC) stays true to the original vision of cryptocurrency: a financial system owned by its users, the people’s coin. Vertcoin is not controlled by large banks or mining hardware manufacturers and can be mined by anyone profitably. Fairly distributed without a premine, ICO or airdrop, Vertcoin is developed by community members working as volunteers and the project is wholly funded by donations. A finite resource similar to gold, you can rest assured that Vertcoin will keep your money safe from vested interests and ensure that transaction fees are proportionate and shared between a large number of miners. With Vertcoin, you can truly be your own bank. CHART
  1. Clams (CLAM)
CLAMs are a form of digital value, or currency, that is transferred, created, and verified by the collective effort of the computers running the CLAMs software. Similar to Bitcoin, the original technology on top of which CLAMs was created, this network follows a rigorous protocol to ensure that consensus and verification are maintained. CHART
  1. TIES Network (TIE)
Ties.Network is a business platform with for finding and establishing professional relationships based on irrefutable rating system and for transacting safe deals. Ties.Network provides all the benefits of well-known social business networks for the crypto-community complemented by strongest advantages of blockchain technology. This one is even not listed on tradingview and volumes just started raising. CHART
  1. Civic (CVC)
Civic (CVC) is a crypto token that is designed as an identity verification system. The idea is that anyone can use their Civic identity anywhere on the web to verify their details using blockchain technology. The project was led by Vinny Lingham, a well known figure within Bitcoin, and the Civic ICO was held in June 2017, raising $33 million in two days. Over 1 billion tokens were created. The token sale was intended to be as decentralized as possible, and resulted in 8,000 different individuals successfully purchasing Civic tokens. Civic’s uses include banks and utility companies who require some degree of identification of their users. The aim is to prevent identity fraud and to safeguard the data of users who are only required to enter their personal information once rather than at multiple sites on the web. CHART
  1. Spectrecoin (XSPEC)
Spectrecoin (XSPEC) is an innovative privacy focused cryptocurrency, featuring an energy-efficient proof-of-stake algorithm that provides rapid transaction confirmations, ring signatures for privacy and anonymity, and a fully integrated Tor+OBFS4 layer for IP obfuscation within the wallet. Spectrecoin is actively developed, with an ambitious roadmap that prioritises privacy, security, and true decentralisation with features such as default stealth addresses and stealth staking, and low-power mobile wallet staking. Although it nearly trippled during the last two months it's still rising. CHART
submitted by Fungon to CryptoCurrency [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]

Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.

*Open Bazaar was crossed-out after their S2X support retraction, see edit at bottom.
These guys have deep pockets, but as you will see below, they are funded by even deeper pockets.
We can't leave this to chance or "the markets to decide" when there is such a malicious intent to manipulate the markets by those powerful players. So that's why all the people saying: "Don't worry, S2X won't happen" or "S2X is DOA" need to stop, we are at a 'make-or-break' moment for Bitcoin. It's very dumb to underestimate them. If you don't know yet who those malicious players are, read below:
We need to keep exposing them everywhere. Using Garzik as a pawn now, after they failed when they bought Hearn and Andresen (Here are the corrupted former 'good guys'), they are using the old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' combined with the 'Divide & Conquer' strategies to try to hijack Bitcoin. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
Public pressure works when your profits depend on your reputation. The social media criticism worked for companies like Open Bazaar, which after weeks of calling them out on their S2X support, they finally withdrew it.
Please contact the companies on these lists if you have any type of relationship with them, we have just a few days left until the fork:
Regarding OpenBazaar:
* openbazaar (OB1) developer appears to be spreading pro s2x fud. someone needs to fork their project
* PSA : Open Bazaars latest investment round was for 200K from Barry Silberts DCG (Digital Currency Group)
(See edit at the bottom)
B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly these crooks and the people they bribed that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin:
Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Bobby Lee, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team)(see edit at the bottom), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins (Federal Reserve Board of Directors), Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
Once people are informed, they won't be fooled (like all the poor guys at btc) and will follow Bitcoin instead of the S2X or Bcash or any other centralized altcoin they come up with disguised as Bitcoin.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Blythe Masters:
Former executive at JPMorgan Chase.[1] She is currently the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings,[2] a financial technology firm developing distributed ledger technology for wholesale financial services.[3] Masters is widely credited as the creator of the credit default swap as a financial instrument. She is also Chairman of the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation’s open source Hyperledger Project, member of the International Advisory Board of Santander Group, and Advisory Board Member of the US Chamber of Digital Commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
And before you dismiss all those hard and documented facts as just a 'conspiracy theory', think about this:
Of course, who thought that the ones holding the centralized financial power today (famous for back-door shady plots to consolidate even more power and control), would sit on their hands and let Bitcoin just stroll in and easily take that power away from them?
So, it is not a crazy conspiracy theory, but more like the logical and expected thing to happen. Don't let it happen.
Edit: Formatting.
Edit 2: Brian Armstrong taken out of the 'bad guys' list.
Edit 3: Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the blacklist for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
Edit 4: Due to Brian Hoffman just issuing this excellent and explicit S2X/NYA support retraction, I created this post to apologize for my previous posts (calling them out for the S2X support) and I will be editing my posts to reflect this positive change. I'm gladly back to being a supporter of the great and promising project that OpenBazaar has proven to be.
Edit 5: Added Blythe Masters (How could we leave her out?).
Edit 6: Added links to lists of companies supporting S2X/NYA.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I propose to start a 'class action' lawsuit against all the companies and individuals involved with S2X/NYA in any capacity. Hear me out:

Edit- For all the people saying that we shouldn't use the law against S2X. Thanks exab for this post Satoshi's verdict: Use laws to protect yourself and Bitcoin!
Satoshi's source code (comment) in every file he created:
// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
I trust it ends the narrative that we should not use laws to protect ourselves or Bitcoin.
We don't need to wait anymore, certainly not until they do a real damage to the Bitcoin structure or decentralization, we have now enough documented evidence of malicious intent and fraud. We will give an ultimatum and a one week grace period to give a chance to drop out before a company/individual is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. It is time we organize properly, like they did, and defend against this ridiculous and malicious take-over attempt.
This is an actual Trojan Horse and we are welcoming in with our complacency by saying: "Bitcoin has survived all past attacks, honeybadger don't care", don't forget that 'honeybadger' is all of us, united. This attack is not like the others, this one has the backing of the most powerful companies in the space plus most of the miners.
They want to succeed were the banker's special forces led by Blythe Masters failed to infiltrate and highjack Bitcoin since she was well known by many people and could not run incognito.
Now they are doing it from the inside, including the purchase of weak-morals developers like Garzik, Hearn and Andersen, as well as entrepreneurs like Ver, Voorhees, Jihan and Pair (maybe even Armstrong).
Stop underestimating these people, they are very smart and have very deep pockets (hundreds of billions of printed to infinity fiat deep).
Here is a list of the people who should not be trusted at all and many of them will probably be listed as defendants: Gavin Andersen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham and Brian Armstrong.
By now, they should be considered as enemies of Bitcoin and decentralization. Their credibility, reputation, and businesses will be run into the ground by no other than their own greed, selfishness and seek for more power and control, unless they come out publicly against S2X/NYA.
We, the people/users/nodes, and the hardworking and honest Core developers are the honeybadger: WE ARE BITCOIN. This is not FUD, Bitcoin will survive, there is no way to put it back into Pandora's Box, but we need to be conscious that we can easily avoid any damage if we remain united. Let's swarm the S2X/NYA beast and show it the real power of Decentralization. Exciting times we are living... this will be fun!
Edit- Great post on btc against S2X... This attack is so blatant that even they are seeing through it now. OP is a well-known poster there (strongly anti-bitcoin and strong bcash supporter), the post is surprisingly being upvoted and even gilded:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/743qb8/is_segwit2x_the_real_banker_takeove
DCG (digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Predicting the Outcome of the November Bitcoin Fork

On approximately November 18, Bitcoin will split into two chains: Segwit1x and Segwit2x. Because these chains share the same proof-of-work function (PoW) and neither change the difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA), it is unlikely that both will survive simultaneously.
A complicating factor is the existence of Bitcoin Cash, a fork of Bitcoin which shares the same PoW but has in addition an improved DAA that ensures it can adjust downward in difficulty rapidly as needed in the event of miner evacuation, keeping its block interval at approximately 10 minutes on average. Bitcoin Cash cannot die, but Segwit1x and Segwit2x can both die.
These are the possible scenarios that may unfold starting November 18:
Scenario 1: The Flippening
Bitcoin Cash becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit1x survives with an "emergency hard fork" to a new PoW function or DAA, and Segwit2x dies.
This scenario is widely ignored or ridiculed in the Bitcoin community which is why the current price of Bitcoin is more than ten times the price of Bitcoin Cash. However, this scenario is actually the most likely due to the spectacular gains to be made by miners, speculators and businesses who game this scenario. Anyone who is in a position to cause the flippening can increase their money 10-fold in a month, followed by far higher long-term gains due to the ability of Bitcoin Cash to scale to a global audience.
If this scenario plays out, it will probably happen as follows:
Whales will buy Bitcoin Cash cheap and sell Bitcoin at its all-time highs in preparation for the flippening. Then by leveraging huge amounts of capital, whales will push the price of Bitcoin Cash up and the price of Bitcoin down at approximately the same time as the split between Segwit1x and Segwit2x.
Miners will now be incentivized to switch from Segwit1x/Segwit2x to Bitcoin Cash due to improved profitability, while Segwit1x and Segwit2x both struggle on suddenly far lower mining power. Miners themselves may also be whales and will deliberately cause the incentives to shift for their own double gain.
Segwit2x dies to due no ability to change the PoW or DAA (since that's not a part of the New York Agreement (NYA)). Segwit1x changes its PoW and survives as an altcoin branded as "Bitcoin". Many in the Segwit1x community are already comfortable with this possibility, and more certainly will be if all of their value is threatened with destruction otherwise. Over some period of time, Bitcoin Cash achieves status as the longest chain as measured by total PoW and some exchanges and businesses now regard it as being "Bitcoin".
Scenario 2: Segwit2x wins
Segwit2x becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit1x changes its PoW, and Bitcoin Cash survives. This is the second most likely scenario due to the fact that a vast majority of miners and a majority of businesses have committed to Segwit2x as part of the NYA. However, this scenario is strictly less likely than the above due to the lesser gains to be made. No one can multiply their value by 10-fold in a short period of time in this scenario. And the long-term future is likely to continue to have infighting, high fees, and loss of market share to altcoins - it's better for business if Bitcoin Cash wins.
Note that, even if Segwit1x has a higher price on exchanges at the time of the fork, that does not help Segwit1x much if miners stick to their agreement and continue to mine Segwit2x. See Vinny Lingham's theory about how the minority chain cannot have a higher value.
In this scenario, similar to the above, it is most likely Segwit1x will change its PoW and become an altcoin in order to ensure its chain survives.
Scenario 3: Segwit1x wins
Segwit1x becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit2x dies, and Bitcoin Cash survives. If the movement from the Segwit1x community is successful, Segwit2x will be prevented from occurring due to the community uprising. This scenario is less likely than the above two scenarios due to the lack of commitment from miners to mine the Segwit1x chain. Segwit1x will probably not survive on ~10% of mining power due to excessively long block times for several months. Trolling on social media is not a substitute for mining power.
In this scenario, Segwit2x completely dies as no parties in the NYA agreed to change the PoW function or DAA in order to allow it to survive.
This scenario can be encouraged by whales. If whales specifically desire to make Segwit1x the dominant chain, they can buy Segwit1x. If they are able to sustain a high price of Segwit1x due to a flood of capital that lasts beyond any insecurity, the miners are incentivized to switch back over from Segwit2x. However, this requires vastly more capital than the scenario in which Bitcoin Cash wins because the market cap of Bitcoin is more than 10 times that of Bitcoin Cash. Rational whales who actually want Bitcoin to succeed would prefer the Bitcoin Cash scenario. Other Near-Term Scenarios
There are other scenarios that are logically possible, such as the co-existence of Segwit1x and Segwit2x with no further hard forks, but they are unlikely. I believe one of the above three scenarios will almost certainly be the scenario that plays out in November.
Long-Term Scenarios
Note that if Bitcoin Cash does not achieve majority mining power and total accumulated PoW, the situation will continue to be unstable past the November 18 fork. Over the long-term, Bitcoin Cash can both achieve a larger user-base than Segwit1x/Segwit2x and, because it has a better DAA, it can't die, and will therefore continue to be a thorn in the side of Bitcoin until it ultimately acquires majority mining support and becomes labeled "Bitcoin".
However, things could easily change long-term to affect these probabilities. For instance, if Bitcoin changes its DAA to be similar to Bitcoin Cash, then Bitcoin Cash's advantage will go away and the mining dominance of Bitcoin will continue.
Thoughts?
submitted by Yanlii to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

It is time to unite, organize and squeeze-out any possible viability for S2X/NYA.

And the simplest, cheapest, fastest and more efficient way to do it is this one:
Expose to the sunlight what DCG is and who is behind it
First, let's just post the links to the sites listing all the companies supporting the attack for quick reference:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Then, let's post a list of the individuals still supporting this attack despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them about how and why S2X is not only totally pointless from the technical as well as economical (benefit for the whole ecosystem and not just a few) points of view and also about how and why S2X is an open attack on Bitcoin.
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite, that is as a system, but we, as individuals, do care and must be proactively working against this attack.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets, so here they are:
Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins and Jiang Zhuoer.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
Edit: Formatting.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

7 CEOs on the Future of Bitcoin

Many people have strong opinions on Bitcoin, but does anyone really know where the digital currency is going? At Fortune’s recent Brainstorm Finance conference, we put the question “What’s the future of Bitcoin?” to seven CEOs—and one COO.
The executives, who lead companies both inside and outside the cryptocurrency space, offered up a series of snappy answers you can watch in the 2 minute and 30 second video above. We’ve also compiled portions of their responses:
Hikmet Ersek, CEO of Western Union, who is confronting blockchain companies that claim to challenge his company’s money transfer business: “Blockchain is definitely an interesting processing model. Coins and currencies have to be shipped by central banks—that’s what I believe. It has to be controlled by governments. … Bitcoin I don’t think has a long run.”
Sallie Krawcheck, CEO of Ellevest and a former top executive at Bank of America, had a refreshingly direct take: “I have no idea. Anyone else think they know?”
Amber Baldet, former blockchain executive at JP Morgan who now runs the blockchain start-up Clovyr: “[Bitcoin] technology is out in the wild and is being learned from and modified and, in some incarnation, the problems that it solves and the things people need from it will stick around.”
Jeremy Allaire, CEO of long-established cryptocurrency payment service Circle, said: “The role of Bitcoin is growing as a non-sovereign digital store of value that is private and un-censorable.”
Vinny Lingham, CEO of blockchain idea management service Civic: “Some people see Bitcoin as a store of value—everyone should be buying it to hold it and prevent against a global meltdown of governments. Others people believe Bitcoin is meant to be a cryptocurrency for peer-to-peer payments.”
The CEO of buzzy credit card start Brex, Henrique Dubugras, said: “I believe it will be a better way to store value in countries where the currency is pretty volatile.”
Barry Silbert, the CEO of Digital Currency Group and investor in dozens of crypto startups: “Bitcoin has all the same attributes as gold … What Bitcoin lacks in history and, arguably, cultural significance, it more than makes up in accessibility and utility.”
Adam White, COO of the New York Stock Exchange’s crypto venture, Bakkt, had this to say: “What we previously saw only in the domains of sovereign nation states—like money—now via technology and software, we can now do and accomplish in a decentralized way.”
* More Details Here
submitted by acerod1 to Business_Analyst [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]

Predicting the Outcome of the November Bitcoin Fork

On approximately November 18, Bitcoin will split into two chains: Segwit1x and Segwit2x. Because these chains share the same proof-of-work function (PoW) and neither change the difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA), it is unlikely that both will survive simultaneously.
A complicating factor is the existence of Bitcoin Cash, a fork of Bitcoin which shares the same PoW but has in addition an improved DAA that ensures it can adjust downward in difficulty rapidly as needed in the event of miner evacuation, keeping its block interval at approximately 10 minutes on average. Bitcoin Cash cannot die, but Segwit1x and Segwit2x can both die.
These are the possible scenarios that may unfold starting November 18:
Scenario 1: The Flippening
Bitcoin Cash becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit1x survives with an "emergency hard fork" to a new PoW function or DAA, and Segwit2x dies.
This scenario is widely ignored or ridiculed in the Bitcoin community which is why the current price of Bitcoin is more than ten times the price of Bitcoin Cash. However, this scenario is actually the most likely due to the spectacular gains to be made by miners, speculators and businesses who game this scenario. Anyone who is in a position to cause the flippening can increase their money 10-fold in a month, followed by far higher long-term gains due to the ability of Bitcoin Cash to scale to a global audience.
If this scenario plays out, it will probably happen as follows:
Whales will buy Bitcoin Cash cheap and sell Bitcoin at its all-time highs in preparation for the flippening. Then by leveraging huge amounts of capital, whales will push the price of Bitcoin Cash up and the price of Bitcoin down at approximately the same time as the split between Segwit1x and Segwit2x.
Miners will now be incentivized to switch from Segwit1x/Segwit2x to Bitcoin Cash due to improved profitability, while Segwit1x and Segwit2x both struggle on suddenly far lower mining power. Miners themselves may also be whales and will deliberately cause the incentives to shift for their own double gain.
Segwit2x dies to due no ability to change the PoW or DAA (since that's not a part of the New York Agreement (NYA)). Segwit1x changes its PoW and survives as an altcoin branded as "Bitcoin". Many in the Segwit1x community are already comfortable with this possibility, and more certainly will be if all of their value is threatened with destruction otherwise. Over some period of time, Bitcoin Cash achieves status as the longest chain as measured by total PoW and some exchanges and businesses now regard it as being "Bitcoin".
Scenario 2: Segwit2x wins
Segwit2x becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit1x changes its PoW, and Bitcoin Cash survives. This is the second most likely scenario due to the fact that a vast majority of miners and a majority of businesses have committed to Segwit2x as part of the NYA. However, this scenario is strictly less likely than the above due to the lesser gains to be made. No one can multiply their value by 10-fold in a short period of time in this scenario. And the long-term future is likely to continue to have infighting, high fees, and loss of market share to altcoins - it's better for business if Bitcoin Cash wins.
Note that, even if Segwit1x has a higher price on exchanges at the time of the fork, that does not help Segwit1x much if miners stick to their agreement and continue to mine Segwit2x. See Vinny Lingham's theory about how the minority chain cannot have a higher value.
In this scenario, similar to the above, it is most likely Segwit1x will change its PoW and become an altcoin in order to ensure its chain survives.
Scenario 3: Segwit1x wins
Segwit1x becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit2x dies, and Bitcoin Cash survives. If the movement from the Segwit1x community is successful, Segwit2x will be prevented from occurring due to the community uprising. This scenario is less likely than the above two scenarios due to the lack of commitment from miners to mine the Segwit1x chain. Segwit1x will probably not survive on ~10% of mining power due to excessively long block times for several months. Trolling on social media is not a substitute for mining power.
In this scenario, Segwit2x completely dies as no parties in the NYA agreed to change the PoW function or DAA in order to allow it to survive.
This scenario can be encouraged by whales. If whales specifically desire to make Segwit1x the dominant chain, they can buy Segwit1x. If they are able to sustain a high price of Segwit1x due to a flood of capital that lasts beyond any insecurity, the miners are incentivized to switch back over from Segwit2x. However, this requires vastly more capital than the scenario in which Bitcoin Cash wins because the market cap of Bitcoin is more than 10 times that of Bitcoin Cash. Rational whales who actually want Bitcoin to succeed would prefer the Bitcoin Cash scenario. Other Near-Term Scenarios
There are other scenarios that are logically possible, such as the co-existence of Segwit1x and Segwit2x with no further hard forks, but they are unlikely. I believe one of the above three scenarios will almost certainly be the scenario that plays out in November.
Long-Term Scenarios
Note that if Bitcoin Cash does not achieve majority mining power and total accumulated PoW, the situation will continue to be unstable past the November 18 fork. Over the long-term, Bitcoin Cash can both achieve a larger user-base than Segwit1x/Segwit2x and, because it has a better DAA, it can't die, and will therefore continue to be a thorn in the side of Bitcoin until it ultimately acquires majority mining support and becomes labeled "Bitcoin".
However, things could easily change long-term to affect these probabilities. For instance, if Bitcoin changes its DAA to be similar to Bitcoin Cash, then Bitcoin Cash's advantage will go away and the mining dominance of Bitcoin will continue.
Thoughts?
submitted by Yanlii to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Do you trust the elect? To lead is to believe.

Vinny explained that *“I’m not buying any bounce right now that doesn’t go to around $6,200 and stays there for at least 24-48 hours as being the end of the bear market cycle.”*reference: https://www.btcnn.com/news/vinny-lingham-bitcoin-could-still-crash-below-3000/
This statement made me think. If elect people like Vinny Lingham believe that Bitcoin may crash any time and he's not buying the bounce. There are several questions that needs answers about this kind of stereotype:
  1. Do these people think that Bitcoin may eventually completely crash? Most of us do not believe of this possibility, because we have faith that cryptocurrency is here to last not just by the will of its' developers/users but also (my opinion) because governments will seek it as a replacement/improvement for the traditional economic model.
  2. If they do believe that Bitcoin may probably totally crash, why should I even invest in CVC (Vinny's product) if he does not have faith and believes that the father of cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) may die at any time, taking with it the entire space/market.
  3. If they don't believe that BTC will completely crash, and instead it will keep rising in value then what's the point of not buying the bounce? Aren't these just minor details for the present moment? The only reason to believe that one person is not buying the bounce is a short term trader. But according to Vinny's statement he will only buy when BTC is around 6200 USD for 24 hours or more.
Vinny's statement has made me lose any trust in his project the CVC coin. Don't you think that the elect need to be leaders of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency-space faith instead of short term traders or BTC price prophets? To lead is to believe.
submitted by tommy737 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

PODCAST Bitcoin Oracle Vinny Lingham: Bull Market at +$6,200; Institutional Money Long Way Off

https://coinspice.io/news/podcast-bitcoin-oracle-vinny-lingham-bull-market-at-6200-institutional-money-long-way-off/

TL;DR: Vinny Lingham is an investor, television star, and entrepreneur. He’s also a contrarian, and seems to never follow the pack but to lead it … at times reluctantly. For him, Bitcoin’s value proposition is in being money for the world, and especially for poorer people. Street cred for Lingham goes way back, and price calls he’s made are nothing short of incredible (he pokes fun at himself for being called an oracle). He joins the CoinSpice Podcast to discuss his latest passion, Civic, growing up in racist South Africa, and his take on the crypto market’s current state.
submitted by afriendofsatoshi to btc [link] [comments]

Will Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork will become the main Bitcoin?

As per Newyork Agreement, 80% of the miners and exchanges supported Segwit2x.
Later, Few miners and exchanges withdrew their support but still the support is comfortably above 50%.
If BTC2x gets 60%+ support, It will only make Legacy Bitcoin payments super expensive and super slow. (Might take days to send coins)
As of now, BTC top personalities like Roger ver and Vinny Lingham openly supports Segwit2x and spending millions to make it successful.
Coinbase already had said they will show BTC2x forked coin as the main Bitcoin on their exchange and the legacy Bitcoin as BTC1. However, they later changed their tone to say we will go with the one market will support.
My Personal Opinion: Bitcoin forks only weaken the Cryptocurrency image and confuse noobs. Many think of forks easy riches for those who fork as Billions are created from Thin air. I believe that forks shouldn't happen and all upgrades should be made to the legacy coin.
What does market show: with the current market situation, It looks like Bitcoin2x could be worth as much as the Bitcoin now if they get 60%+ Miner and exchanges support. Legacy Bitcoin might loose value.
What everyone should do: People should hold their Bitcoin in the wallet where they own their private key. Because an exchange might not give them BTC2x and just in case BTC2x becomes the main coin, the legacy Bitcoin will tank badly; Therefore, Everyone who own a lot of Bitcoin in hot wallets will be very poor.
Please share your opinions in the comments section!
submitted by Shazahmed11 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Chris Derose: "Its time to stop 'pretending'. You don't own Bitcoin. Now can we stick together?"

I am reprinting this with Chris's permission - originally posted on his Patreon board.
------Start Article------
You don't own Bitcoin. There, someone had to say it. Might as well be me. Owning Bitcoin was a great meme. Had an awesome run. But you don't own it, and never did. Sound delusional? Nope. By the end of this article, you will probably agree. What was once once a simple equation has become far more complex. And with that complexity comes a new understanding of what it is you bought: a UTXO.
If you know what a UTXO is - skip this paragraph, and continue on to the next one. If you don't, read on. Bitcoin uses a 'triple ledger accounting system'. What you know as 'your balance' (say, "3 bitcoins") is actually a collection of 'checks' made out to your public address. When you spend 'a bitcoin', you broadcast a check of your own. Your check allocates Satoshis from the unspent checks you hold, as the source of the funds for the next guy. That check you wrote out to the next guy? That check is now an unspent transaction output (UTXO). He can use this unspent check to repeat the procedure. This process of new checks written by sourcing unspent checks continues on indefinitely. Still confused? Here's an ancient presentation where I explain this process in greater detail. If you're a Bitcoin investor, you should understand what risk you own.
Now it's time to have a sober discussion about the ramifications.
Unlike 'pennies' or 'gold bars', every UTXO is different. Every single one is unique. Like checks, no two are identical. As such, each UTXO represents a different articulation of risk. Some UTXOs might be 'tainted' with a black market origination. These UTXO's will be hard to redeem at an exchange, and may be better suited for sale on localbitcoins.com. Selling the UTXO there, has the benefit of maintaining secrecy. This benefit will make that UTXO more valuable. Or, maybe, you want to try your luck at tumbling these UTXOs. For a fee, someone will jumble your check up and obfuscate its origin. You can redeem this newly obfuscated check on an exchange at a small total net loss. This form of UTXO risk is generally labeled 'fungibility' risk. We've had this risk for years, and by and large, it's a well understood problem. But there's a more relevant kind of UTXO risk in 2017.
I don't know what to call this newer risk, if not 'consensus' risk. See, your UTXOs were formed at a certain block height. And as a general rule, the older your UTXO, the less consensus risk that UTXO has. For example, if your UTXO was formed prior to the Bitcoin Cash fork, it can be redeemed on both Bitcoin blockchains. Depending on how old your UTXO is, it may even be redeemable on one or more of the following Bitcoin blockchains: XT, Classic, Unlimited, and even Clam. (Assuming buyers for these Bitcoins are still around.)
If you're skeptical that some UTXOs are riskier than others, ask yourself what you'd want: A older UTXO that can be spent on all bitcoins? Or a newer one, that's only available on your favorite bitocoin? The correct answer, is the UTXO that can be redeemed across all bitcoins. It's more valuable, for the simple reason that it can be spent on all networks. And many people are proud to claim the 'Bitcoin Cash' value of their UTXOs for value on the... well, Bitcoin-that-is-not-Cash.
So what you thought was 'a Bitcoin' is actually a UTXO, formed under a Bitcoin ruleset. And your UTXO is redeemable under one or more other Bitcoin rulesets. These rulesets have version numbers. And you know what? They even have names.
In fact, its kind of annoying to keep talking about the Bitcoin-that-is-not-Cash. Hell, I'd like to talk about the Bitcoin-that-is-not-Cash-and-not-xt-and-not-classic-or-unlimited-or-clams-either quite frankly. And you know what? I think investors would too. So I polled them. And that seems to be what they said.
So, I went to bitcoin.org, and I wanted to see what they would call this bitcoin, that so many people seem to want unnamed. And they call it this:
Bitcoin Core
There. That wasn't so hard. Download Bitcoin Core.
The benefits of articulating what risk we want to bear when holding UTXOs are manyfold. Take the bitcoinj, btcd, and bcoin rulesets. I know what you're thinking: they're all the same! Nope. You're completely wrong. Here's another ancient video I did. This time with Peter Todd. Peter Todd wrote a lot about the difficulties that can cause ruleset implementations to come out of sync with Bitcoin Core. There are so many, that exchanges don't bother running those implementations at all. Or when they do, they only do so to ensure that all versions of all rulesets are in sync. If you're skeptical, run a little experiment with yourself. If a weird bitcoin transaction came into a block, that caused implementations to go out of sync, which implementation would you proceed on? Do you have an answer? I bet it's Bitcoin Core. Or hey, maybe its Bitcoin Cash. But the point is the same: Consensus implementations are named and numbered. And both of those labels impact the risk of the UTXOs they produce.
Still in disbelief about the difficulty of consensus? Here's another great article on the subject. There are many others. This is an old topic, settled long ago.
And you know what? I think that's great. I love Bitcoin Core. So do most bitcoiners. Articulating our consensus risk lets us solve problems like this without government intervention. Similarly, exchanges won't want to bear the legal liabilities associated with making guesses over what consensus risk their depositors want exposure to. You may still be reluctant to stand in solidarity with your most trusted Blockchain team. I get that. I too resent that the community has fractured to the degree that it has. Blockchain ain't what it used to be.
If you thought this article was complicated, well, no one wants to have this discussion with the courts. And over time, you can expect more organizations to begin declaring this too. So, I think we should just embrace the elephant in the room. Rather than wear hats. Change our twitter handles. And do whatever crazy thing it is we do to express solidarity with a team, why not just start calling our favorite Bitcoin by its name? That seems like a reasonable way to tell the people who hold our UTXOs what to do when there's an emergency.
Belonging to a team isn't shameful. It's worked well enough for most blockchains. And really, we don't have a choice. Be proud to declare the Bitcoin you want to hold, and maybe you'll drown out those that wish to take it from you. If we stick together, maybe that will address the problems that caused us to be afraid of labeling our bitcoin to begin with. Who knows? Maybe that can even get a non-contentious hardfork out the door one of these days.
All this discussion does raise a greater question though: What is the true Bitcoin? Some people like Vinny Lingham, think it's ruleset with the largest amount of work. That's been my view. But it's a tough view these days as relations between Bitcoin Core and its miners have deteriorated. I still lean toward energy-expended as the best metric. But I don't think anyone really knows what to do. Maybe the 'true Bitcoin' is the Bitcoin with the highest market cap. Or highest volume. Or highest node count. Or... maybe we don't have a true Bitcoin. And the best that we can do is have the market asses the risk of competing rulesets.
I love core. They're great. But there's nothing more political than rulesets. We seem to be in a partisan era in the story of Bitcoin. Some people are engaging in denial. Others look forward to the ability to express solidarity with a group of specialists they trust.
What do you think?
submitted by caulds989 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham $740 Bitcoin makes many think of Vinny Lingham $1000 BTC prediction, Zcash, Steemit, I'm in Namibia Interview with Vinny Lingham of Gyft on Accepting Bitcoins Vinny Lingham on Bitcoin KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Vinny Lingham - Bitcoin: A Silicon Valley perspective

Four years ago, Vinny Lingham predicted bitcoin’s bull run and a number of bitcoiners have referred to him as the “oracle.” On Twitter, Lingham is once again giving his predictions on bitcoin’s future prices. He’s also noted this month that he’s “bullish on bitcoin” and hasn’t felt this way since 2016. The former CEO of […] The 'Oracle' Vinny Lingham noted this month that he’s “bullish on bitcoin” and hasn’t felt this way since 2016. How to value bitcoin By Patrick Cairns 26 September 2017 1 Comment. Twitter Facebook Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp YouTube. The sharp rise in the price of bitcoin and some other cryptocurrencies since the start of 2017 has created enormous interest in this market. Many people see it is a chance to make money, and they don’t want to miss out. However, there are plenty of sceptics. The arguments ... Civic cryptocurrency CEO, Vinny Lingham, has predicted the value of Bitcoin (BTC) to drop below the $3.000 USD mark before facing a bullish momentum. The serial entrepreneur and a shark in South Africa’s Shark Tank also explained his decision to transfer the funds raised through crypto to cash. Civic CEO Vinny Lingham forecast the Bitcoin price to remain below $5000 for at least three to six months this week as sentiment throughout the industry takes a beating. $3K Bitcoin Price ‘Could Go’ Speaking in an interview with CNBC November 26, Lingham, whose Civic 0 0 raised $33 million in an ICO last year but now trades below its original market cap, joined analysts such as Tone Vays ...

[index] [32778] [24941] [1450] [47874] [4634] [1945] [13659] [38221] [48540] [3101]

Vinny Lingham

This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Here Vinny takes us through the creation and design of Bitcoin and explains how its technology and concept can be expanded to influence so much more that jus... Vinny Lingham on Bitcoin. Learn all about the world of fintech and get certified with Rise, created by Barclays at https://www.42courses.com/courses/barclays... Vinny joins the show to talk about Civic.com a new secure identity platform as well as the failure of the Bitcoin ETF and bubles in Altcoins. Bitcoin is now over $740 and trading volume is normal. This is a good sign- people just want Bitcoin. People are praising Vinny Lingham's predictions from ea...

#