Buy Bitcoin A secure way to Buy Bitcoin with your credit ...

Swipe Bi-Weekly Update #3

Swipe Bi-Weekly Update #3

https://preview.redd.it/7fbetvbwsks41.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e30fcb7e7a120537c0fb1910730fe984064d7a96
The first two weeks of April landed new partnerships, programs, and integrations for the Swipe Wallet platform. To generate more awareness about Swipe, the team has been very active in promoting its services to the public and even giving away special prizes to lucky participants who joined the program.
https://preview.redd.it/c4z7op71tks41.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=92956aee8197fc4cc0d9942cac8ec140c5c2a978
Send Crypto with iMessage Globally
Swipe Wallet iOS users can now send cryptocurrencies directly via iMessage. This announcement of Swipe came after the recent fiat inflation happening across the world.
To use this option, Swipe Wallet users can simply go directly to their iMessage and tap on the Swipe Widget to get started.
Swipe Visa Cards Contactless NFC Update
Swipe has increased the limits for its PIN-less NFC taps payments. As Swipe tries to help raise health awareness and to limit the possible exposure of its users to COVID-19, it has increased these limits so users do not have to touch keypads and just have to tap their cards. The limits for physical payments are €50 per payment with a daily limit of €150.
SXP Deflationary Supply Model
The Swipe Token (SXP) has implemented and deployed a deflationary supply model “tokenomics,” a different model compared to most traditional cryptocurrencies use in the market today.
SXP follows a deflationary supply model. SXP has a 300,000,000 fixed supply programmatically designed to become lower over time due to the nature of the protocol. This means that the total SXP supply is designed to decrease as more demand and use in the protocol happens within the Swipe user base and community. In the Swipe Network, 80% of transaction fees that flow through its protocol get automatically destroyed by a smart contract that has been audited and verified by CertiK. 20% of those transaction fees remain in the protocol for Swipe, and in the future, this 20% will be for the validators as network fees they earn when they validate the transactions of the network. With this system, the total supply of SXP becomes lower as time progresses and the use of system increases.
Swipe plans to upgrade the protocol into a DAO where users can vote on protocol changes. One change lined up on the launch of Swipe v2 will be the total supply cap. More details on the Swipe v2 protocol will be released via a revised Swipe Network whitepaper soon.
Swipe Spotlight Coin: Tron TRX
TRON (TRX) is the latest coin to join Swipe’s “Swipe Spotlight.” The Swipe spotlight program gives users a first-hand view of all the Swipe platform benefits and a specific coin with 0% fees.
TRON (TRX) is running on the TRON blockchain, one of the largest blockchain-based operating system in the world. It is the official digital currency of Tron Foundation, which aims to build a decentralized internet and create a global free entertainment content system that utilizes the blockchain technology.
Swipe Wallet verified users will be able to use the TRX through the Swipe platform. Users can buy TRX with a linked bank account in the UK and EU with SEPA transfer or wire funds via SWIFT. TRX may also be purchased with a verified Visa or MasterCard debit or credit card and Apple Pay. All of these features have NO FEES.
Swipe Visa Cardholders can benefit by spending TRX to Euros at point-of-sale using the Swipe Network conversion system. That means if the Cardholder, in the United Kingdom and 27 other European Union countries, wants to buy coffee with TRX, all they need to do is enable the “Funding Source” to TRX in the App and just “swipe” their card. Swipe’s backend system will do the heavy lifting for its users to convert it to Euros so that the merchant gets paid immediately.
Twitter Giveaway
Swipe has announced the 100 lucky users on its recent twitter giveaway. Winners received $100 in Bitcoin (BTC) through Swipe’s Twitter Giveaway Event.
On its recent Twitter post, Swipe is again giving away $1,000 worth of Bitcoins (BTC) to 10 lucky winners in celebration of its May 1st special announcement. To join, participants must like the pinned message on Swipe’s Twitter page, retweet the pinned message with #Swipe and Tag three friends.
Earn cash back in Bitcoin (BTC) via Swipe Visa Card
Swipe Visa card users in the United Kingdom and 28 countries* in Europe can now earn their cash back in Bitcoins (BTC). Swipe Visa card users can also enjoy converting their cryptocurrencies to Euros, spend Euros and earn crypto, use Google Pay, and use Visa Paywave NFC tap payments.
\Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, & U.K*
ARK and USDC integration on Swipe Wallet
Swipe has listed ARK and USD Coin (USDC) on the Swipe Wallet platform. Swipe users can now buy and sell these cryptocurrencies via their linked bank account or cards, spend it to fiat using Swipe Visa, and exchange these coins instantly with all the supported coins in the Swipe Wallet platform.
---
Stay up-to-date with all the latest news from Swipe
Website: https://swipe.io
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SwipeWallet
Facebook: https://facebook.com/Swipe
Instagram: https://instagram.com/Swipe
Medium: https://medium.com/Swipe
Telegram: https://t.me/SwipeWallet & https://t.me/Swipe
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/swipewallet
YouTube: https://youtube.com/SwipeWallet
submitted by SwipeWallet to Swipe_io [link] [comments]

Slack chat with James Lovejoy (VTC Lead Dev)

Thought I would share this chat I had with James Lovejoy last night. Super generous of him to provide this much access and time answering questions. I was already a HODL'er, but this solidified it.
beerfinger [1:28 AM] Just read through the entire rebranding thread in the Vertcoin subreddit. Earlier today I also watched some of Crypto Hedge's interview of James Lovejoy from last August on YouTube. I understand both sides of the rebranding argument and have tried to play devil's advocate. Right now I do believe that the argument against rebranding is stronger. Full disclosure: I've worked in marketing/advertising my whole career and just recently got into cryptos. With that said, there are two questions that keeps nagging on me:
[1:28] 1. this coin has been around since 2014, so nearly 4 years. James seems like an incredibly smart and capable chap, but I'm just going to go ahead and assume the he hasn't always been the Lead Dev while he was in high school. Presumably there was someone before him and, after he graduates and moves on to whatever it is he's going to do with his life, there will be someone after him. Yes? So, with all due respect to James, as an investor in VTC, what assurances are there that this isn't merely an interesting side-project for a brilliant MIT student with little interest/incentive in its value as an investment portfolio? If the value of this coin to James is that of a college project, that is something I as an investor would like to know.
jamesl22 [1:32 AM] Hey!
[1:33] I've been the lead dev since Nov 2014
[1:33] (while I was in high school)
[1:33] And I've kept at it through college, I certainly don't intend to go anywhere
[1:33] Plus, there are more who work on this project that just me
beerfinger [1:33 AM] 2. I've read complaints about Vertcoin from people who poopoo its usefulness. Decrying it as "just another coin trying to be Bitcoin with not much differentiating it." People don't seem to view the ASIC thing as a big enough differentiator to make VTC stand out. There seems to be a kernel of truth to that as part of the argument against rebranding seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that it should not occur until a major change in the development is launched. So my question again stems back to James' motivations and incentives here. Is this a convenient use case for some college thesis? Or is the team really working on coming up with a major change in development?
[1:34] hey James! wow, thanks so much for your quick response
[1:34] great to actually communicate with you. and I stand corrected. very impressive that you started on this so young. I can see why MIT accepted you :slightly_smiling_face:
[1:36] my questions still stand though: I'm not trying to insult you so I hope you don't take it that way, but as someone who considers VTC part of my investment portfolio, I am very curious to hear about your incentives. You clearly have noble intentions. But what is your ultimate goal? What's the end game? Is it the same as Satoshi's was? (assuming he was really one person who existed)
[1:37] Or is there something else?
jamesl22 [1:37 AM] I think it's the same as Satoshi's
[1:37] To recreate the financial system in a fairer, more distributed way
[1:37] My research at MIT is totally separate to my work on VTC, though the two are complimentary (both are in cryptocurrency)
[1:38] In my ideal world everyone runs a VTC miner and full node in their home, banks become narrow banks and clearing houses/stock exchanges are a thing of the past
[1:39] The rewards of the financial system (in the form of transaction fees) will be distributed to the people, rather than siphoned off by banks or ASIC manufacturers as happens now (edited)
goodminer [1:40 AM] :thumbsup:
beerfinger [1:40 AM] I see. That is compelling. So, being that's the case, that sounds to me like something worthy of a brand, no?
[1:41] Unless you think there are other coins on the market with the same goals. In which case, what will differentiate VTC?
jamesl22 [1:42 AM] I don't think there are any on the market with as strong of an ideology as us
[1:42] Or any that can demonstrate that it follows through on its commitments
[1:42] The way I see it, VTC went from being worth $0.01 last year to 100x that now
[1:43] I don't see how a rebrand can possible accelerate already parabolic growth
[1:43] Bear in mind, that until a few months ago we had 0 marketing, that is where our focus should be now
beerfinger [1:44 AM] Fair. I'm curious, what do you think it SHOULD be worth?
[1:44] I mean right now, at this moment.
jamesl22 [1:44 AM] I don't think I should say, the SEC might be watching us
beerfinger [1:44 AM] Not in the future.
[1:44] haha
[1:44] ok
[1:44] Can you say if you feel it is undervalued?
[1:44] or overvalued
jamesl22 [1:45 AM] I will say with confidence that 95% of the top 100 is severely overvalued
beerfinger [1:45 AM] coins you mean
jamesl22 [1:45 AM] Yes
[1:45] On coinmarketcap
[1:45] If you visit most of their websites, there is no code at all
[1:45] Yet it's worth many times what VTC is worth
[1:46] Where VTC has been established for nearly 4 years, bug free and features well demonstrated
[1:46] VTC also had LN and SegWit on main net before LTC or BTC (edited)
beerfinger [1:46 AM] Yes I mean your statement doesn't surprise me. It's a nacent market. Lots of snake oil, clearly.
[1:47] I guess to steer this back towards the branding/marketing of your coin though, you clearly feel strongly about it and have a clear vision. Do you feel that as it stands the branding conveys that sentiment?
jamesl22 [1:47 AM] When you say branding, I assume you mean "vertcoin" and the logo?
beerfinger [1:48 AM] yes. logo, color scheme, etc...
[1:48] name even
[1:49] also to clarify one point, when I say that you clearly feel strongly about it, the "it" refers to your coin (not the marketing of it)
jamesl22 [1:49 AM] I think it's largely arbitrary
beerfinger [1:49 AM] why is that
jamesl22 [1:49 AM] Most coin names have no meaning whatsoever
[1:49] Google, the largest tech company in the world has a silly name
[1:50] Litecoin (whose name ought to imply it has fewer features) is #4
beerfinger [1:51 AM] I wouldn't underestimate the amount of strategy that went into branding Google (and continues to this day)
jamesl22 [1:51 AM] What's most important is the pitch, how can you convince someone who knows nothing about the technicals behind cryptocurrency, that ASIC resistance and decentralisation is important?
[1:51] Yes, but the original branding was arbitrary and haphazard
[1:52] Yet the technology spoke for itself
[1:52] Now it's in the dictionary
[1:53] Spending lots of time and money on a new name/logo, trying to get community consensus on that and then redesigning the website/subreddit/wallets/other services to reflect the changes is not where I think we should focus our small resources
[1:54] My goal over the next year or two is to take VTC from speculative value to real-world value
[1:54] So point of sale, ease of use, that's the focus now
[1:55] I aim to over time provide complete solutions for merchants to implement VTC at point of sale, for laymen to set up nodes and miners in their homes
[1:55] As well as potentially enterprise support if we get big enough
beerfinger [1:55 AM] It sounds like this is your intended career path then, yes?
jamesl22 [1:55 AM] In some shape or form, yes
beerfinger [1:55 AM] Wonderful
[1:55] When do you graduate, James?
[1:55] If you don't mind me asking
slackbot Custom Response [1:55 AM] I AM talking to you aren't I !
jamesl22 [1:56 AM] Charlie Lee worked at Coinbase for several years before returning to LTC a month or two ago
[1:56] 2019
beerfinger [1:56 AM] So you're a Sophomore? Or are you in graduate school?
jamesl22 [1:57 AM] Junior
chuymgzz [1:58 AM] @beerfinger can you imagine when people first heard the word "dollar" like WTF is a dollar where did it actually came from. It actually comes from Czech joachimsthaler, which became shortened in common usage to thaler or taler. Don't pay much attention to the name Vertcoin, just take a look at the tech. If you buy into this coin's ideology, you will actually start to like the name.
jin [1:58 AM] Hey guys :slightly_smiling_face:
[1:59] @chuymgzz but not everyone looks purely at the tech, if we look at the top 100 coins, you would know whats going on :stuck_out_tongue:
beerfinger [1:59 AM] Cool well thanks for indulging me, James. I really appreciate it. Hopefully this conversation continues in the future. While your probably right that right now is probably not the right time, that doesn't mean at some point in the future it won't be. In the meantime, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that I've invested in a worthy cause.
chuymgzz [1:59 AM] Longer term only the functional ones and the ones that deliver will survive and a whole ecosystem will be built around it
jin [1:59 AM] buzz and hype is unfortunately a large part of it
beerfinger [2:00 AM] *you're
jin [2:00 AM] that is true, but without marketing to draw in attention (which leads to usage and so on etc) it will be difficult for a functional one to survive even
beerfinger [2:07 AM] @james122 One more thing: how do you feel about regulation? Pro or con? Do you feel that the idea of nation states like the US and China (ergo the ICO ban) taking it upon themselves to place restrictions on the market to try and make them safer is anathema to the idea of decentralization? Are you a full on libertarian in that respect? Or do you welcome regulation because it'll separate the wheat from the chaff?
jamesl22 [2:07 AM] I think we need a sane amount of regulation
[2:08] ICOs are clearly illegal imo
[2:08] Unless they are performed under the same rules as an IPO
[2:09] Plus I don't want to create a safe harbour for child pornographers, people traffickers and terrorists to store their money
[2:09] However I do think the state has no right to spy on you without a warrant (edited)
beerfinger [2:09 AM] You mean you don't want to be Monero? :slightly_smiling_face:
jamesl22 [2:09 AM] No
[2:10] I will pursue privacy features that make the pseudoanonymity provided by the blockchain easier for people to use effectively
[2:11] That way, it is not obvious to anyone your holdings or transactions publicly (edited)
[2:11] But things like sting operations would still be theoretically possible
beerfinger [2:13 AM] Love it. I still feel the branding thing will need to be revisited at some point. I don't know what that means, exactly. Whether its as small as a font change to something bigger like a new color scheme, logo or even name, I'm not sure of. The ideology is strong, but as it stands Vertcoin doesn't have a clear differentiator in the market. I'm not sure that matters so much yet at this time, but it will.
[2:15] You clearly have a strong vision, I'm just not sure it's being communicated effectively yet. Hence, haters who say Vertcoin is just trying to be another Bitcoin.
workstation [2:15 AM] beerfinger might be a huge whale sniffing out Vertcoin before a huge loadup. Not that, that's a bad thing :stuck_out_tongue:
beerfinger [2:15 AM] haha... I wish
jamesl22 [2:16 AM] Vertcoin is trying to be another Bitcoin lol
[2:16] It's picking up where Bitcoin left off
[2:16] If people want a decentralised cryptocurrency, they should use Vertcoin
[2:17] Bitcoin just isn't one anymore
[2:17] Neither is Litecoin (edited)
beerfinger [2:20 AM] Semantics really, but if that's the case then that means Vertcoin isn't trying to be another Bitcoin. Bitcoin is already Bitcoin, which is a coin that did not fulfill it's promises. Vertcoin, on the other hand, like you said picks up where Bitcoin left off. I'm not sure that's being communicated by the brand (yet). Doing so may have nothing to do with rebranding (unless rebranding generates a bigger social following who then helps you communicate that).
workstation [2:20 AM] You've continued on a great coin James and no doubt Vertcoin has great features vs other coins, however without widespread use and adoption, Vertcoin might just become another coin without much use. The marketing side is sometimes even more important than the development side. Just need to look at history for that. E.g. Early version of Windows was buggy, bluescreen of death plagued it. But with heaps of $$ and marketing, Windows is pretty rock solid these days.
atetnowski [2:21 AM] joined #marketing.
jamesl22 [2:22 AM] Yes, agreed to both statements
[2:22] We're working on it, but it takes time and money
[2:23] But really, adoption is pointless until point of sale works properly
[2:23] When you can get it into people's physical wallets, or phone and they can spend it in a store, that's when it takes off (edited)
[2:23] Walmart, Target, all the big retailers hate Visa and Mastercard
workstation [2:24 AM] Thats a long way off... Even Apple and Samsung are struggling in that area
jamesl22 [2:24 AM] They would love a solution that opted them out of having to pay their fees
beerfinger [2:25 AM] @workstation To play devil's advocate for one sec, most successful people in the world don't achieve success because they tried to achieve success. Success is merely a byproduct of their passion. I do believe that James' commitment to the ideology can be sufficient. But it is true that the branding should communicate his vision. That is a constant conversation, too.
workstation [2:25 AM] yes, true
jamesl22 [2:26 AM] What we really need is talented content creators to make compelling media that explains the vision in a layman friendly way
[2:26] Thus far the message has been far too technical
[2:26] But in the past, the space was mostly populated by technical people so that is understandable
[2:26] It is only in the last 6 months that the general public has started to get involved
[2:27] Sadly "ASIC resistance" doesn't speak to them
beerfinger [2:27 AM] @james122 While it's true that universal adoption is key, you can say that about ANY coin. Even dogecoin would suddenly become a real coin if everyone up and decided to start using it one day. What's your strategy for making VTC that coin?
jamesl22 [2:27 AM] Whereas I think taking power from banks, chinese miners and giving it back to the people can be far more compelling
workstation [2:27 AM] We take Visa and Mastercard at our stores. We only do it because it boosts sales. People these days are all borrowing on credit because they don't have enough.... Paying on their CC# lets them buy things now (instant gratification) and slowly pay later. They managed to get banks on board because they make so much money on the interest. There is a clear reason why those cards satisfy a demand. We get charged about 1.5% by VISA/MC. To be honest, it's not a real deal breaker.
beerfinger [2:27 AM] haha, well, james you're talking to the right guy :slightly_smiling_face:
[2:28] My career is content creation
[2:28] I have nearly 20 years producing commercials and (lately) social content for global brands
mikevert [2:29 AM] joined #marketing.
beerfinger [2:29 AM] I would be happy to consult and provide any assistance I can
[2:29] "taking power from banks, chinese miners and giving it back to the people can be far more compelling" - that's your modus operandi
[2:29] you can definitely tell that story in a compelling way
[2:30] Question: have any crypto's ever created any sort of ad before? Even just for social content? (sorry, I'm new to this space)
jamesl22 [2:30 AM] Well we'd obviously be grateful for your assistance
[2:31] I'd imagine so, though I don't follow many other coins' social media very much
goodminer [2:31 AM] @beerfinger lets chat :smile: We've been working on a lot of initiatives over the last few weeks
jamesl22 [2:31 AM] @workstation 1.5% to a huge retailer is a large sum of money though
workstation [2:35 AM] I don't see any coin being widely used to be honest. They fluctuate way too much. Say a typical consumer whose after tax salary is $1000/week.. He buys groceries at the store for $1/Liter. This is simple maths for him, he knows it's going to cost $1 each week, inflation may make it rise to $1.10 next year, but he understands that. With coins, the price of his milk is too hard to calculate.
[2:37] Why would Bob switch to using coins, when Visa/MC give him so much more? He doesnt pay the processing fee (1.5%), he gets free credit (these days, banks will easily approve 10k credits). Why would he switch to Vertcoin?
jamesl22 [2:37 AM] @workstation, volatility is high because market volume is low
[2:38] I think it will take another financial crisis or two though before people start to abandon fractional reserve banking (edited)
workstation [2:42 AM] As long as bob gets his paycheck, he's not going to care what happens at the fed
jamesl22 [2:43 AM] Bob ain't gunna get his paycheck one day though
[2:44] Because the credit ponzi scheme economy will have collapsed
workstation [2:48 AM] yes, the fed can print whatever it wants out of thin air... But its backed by US tax payers to the tune of 2+ trillion/year with most banks adhering to loan capital requirements. E.g. they need a certain amount of money deposited before they can loan more money out. What is Bitcoin/alt coins backed by? Seems like its somewhat of a ponzi scheme now, with everyone piling in thinking it will go up forever. I get that BTC is backed by real energy usage/capital requirements to mine it (asic equipment, datacenters, etc), so its more "real" than $1 USD, but they both service a purpose.
axelfoley75 [2:49 AM] joined #marketing.
workstation [2:51 AM] but whats the end goal because it seems they all become ponzi schemes. The only true coin will be one that will not allow any fiats be converted to to coin.
[2:51] the only way to earn a coin, would be to mine it, wouldn't you think that that would be the truest coin?
[2:52] right now people are just moving wads of fiat money into coins/alt coins, thereby skewing everything.
beerfinger [2:54 AM] just jumping in here with one last comment before I go to sleep: money, whether we're talking salt, precious metals, fiat currency, or cryptos, is just something that we all agree to prescribe a value to. That being the case, how are you going to stop someone from trading that value for something they want? If someone wants to trade their cryptos for chickens, a latte, USD or anything else, they're going to do it. No point in trying to regulate what people spend their money on or how they do it. Seems the antithesis of the whole decentralization thing anyway
workstation [2:57 AM] true
aegisker [3:02 AM] I belive when crypto matures, has fast and easy payments solutions, volume will rise and price will be more stable. Current price is speculation due to news and new development. I dont belive that after 10 years we will be seeing such swings.
beerfinger [3:04 AM] sorry keep thinking of new stuff... @jamesl22 your point about POS is salient. What's your perspective on coins like TenX that try to address that with payment platforms and cards?
[3:05] is that what you mean? nuts & bolts, how would Vertcoin become a POS option?
aegisker [3:06 AM] How is usdt keeping its price around usd?
beerfinger [3:07 AM] don't they just keep up with USD inflation by making sure there's an equal amount of tokens to USD in the market at any given point?
jamesl22 [3:07 AM] Integration of LN and AS is key
[3:07] Then providing some hardware or software solution to integrate with payment processors
[3:07] I haven't looked at tenx
beerfinger [3:07 AM] so Vertcoin IS actively pursuing this then
[3:08] interesting
[3:09] perhaps there's some way to leverage things like ApplePay
jamesl22 [3:09 AM] I doubt it
[3:09] ApplePay's design is fundamentally different
beerfinger [3:09 AM] I mean it doesn't have to be ApplePay itself. Can be a separate app
lucky [3:09 AM] Having bitcoin or altcoins tied to your debit card isn't unbelievable
jamesl22 [3:10 AM] Of course not
[3:10] But it is suboptimal
beerfinger [3:10 AM] yeah sort of kills the whole decentralization thing
lucky [3:10 AM] in fact if we are going the whole hog and saying fiat collapsed. You'd be silly to think the banks would standby and let crypto take over without them
beerfinger [3:10 AM] now we're relying on banks again
lucky [3:11 AM] At the first sign of crypto succeeding fiat. Banks will take over
[3:11] Because they can trade their fiat to coin
[3:11] Government too
aegisker [3:12 AM] Well, banks issues debt, whole market is built around debt. Crypto would take that away
[3:12] This will be hardest transition
jamesl22 [3:12 AM] If the crypto market ever gets to say $1tril, the banks will use their lobbyist army to squash it as best they can
lucky [3:13 AM] Is it not possible crypto gets immediately regulated into the banking system as soon as it passed fiat in some way
jamesl22 [3:13 AM] They don't care right now because the space is tiny compared to their own equity
lucky [3:13 AM] Yes exactly James
beerfinger [3:13 AM] i like the idea of leveraging NFC tech as a way to introduce crypto to POS purchases... everyone already has a smart phone so no need to reinvent the wheel... it's basically just an app
lucky [3:13 AM] If finance is going to change politics needs to too
[3:14] Nfc seems like the way. Yeag
[3:14] Lots of the android wallets leverage it
aegisker [3:14 AM] No need for nfc, nfc was kinda overhyped. Qr codes can work equally good
jamesl22 [3:14 AM] @beerfinger I think LN will allow us to achieve that
lucky [3:14 AM] Lol qr
[3:14] Who has ever scanned a qr....
jamesl22 [3:14 AM] We just need a hardware implementation for the reader
beerfinger [3:14 AM] sorry james, what's LN?
lucky [3:14 AM] Apple made sure qr never worked
jamesl22 [3:14 AM] Lightning Network
beerfinger [3:14 AM] ah
aegisker [3:15 AM] If u use your phone, why complicate with nfc, is there a security benefit?
beerfinger [3:15 AM] the infrastructure is there... most readers i come across these days are already NFC compliant
jamesl22 [3:15 AM] QR can work, but requires a high res display in the POS device
[3:15] Which would increase costs
[3:15] NFC is cheap af
lucky [3:16 AM] Yep. Qr is extremely requirement heavy
aegisker [3:16 AM] For example, pub: you get check with qr. U pay with your phone. Waiter sees on his computer that its payed.
lucky [3:16 AM] Look at Asia and south America
[3:16] Nobody can read qr
aegisker [3:17 AM] I europe all checks already have qrs for tax checking
lucky [3:17 AM] I work in global marketing. Qr is completely unadopted in the real world
[3:17] Yes in no public scenario qr is used
aegisker [3:17 AM] Where you from?
lucky [3:17 AM] Uk
[3:19] A decade in marketing I can tell you for sure Joe public doesn't scan qr codes
[3:19] James is right. We need an alternative hardware solution
[3:19] And I think I unique piece of tech in public would drive massive interest
aegisker [3:20 AM] In slovenia, croatia, austria(i tjink) there is law that all transactions in coffeeshops or shops(everything with fiat transaction) is sent to tax authority as soon as check is printed. U get qr code on your check, so you can check if tax s paid for your service. This is to prevent black markets and unauthorized sellers. Works pretty well. If you frequently scan qrs you can get some bonuses..
[3:21] Public got used to this pretty fast.
lucky [3:21 AM] So there's an incentive
aegisker [3:21 AM] So also you could print qr shop wallet addr.
lucky [3:21 AM] Kind of skews the ease of adoption stat we are looking for
aegisker [3:22 AM] Costz nothing
lucky [3:22 AM] Costs a smartphone with a quick camera
[3:22] How about in a dark club
beerfinger [3:23 AM] I came tonight with many questions about Vertcoin. Namely the incentives of the Devs and how it differentiated itself in the marketplace. All of those questions have been answered as best as I could have hoped. The only thing left is figuring out a way to tell that story. @jamesl22, all of the things you've said tonight are reassuring and exciting. They provide great promise for the future of this coin and even more - your goals, if realized, are truly category shifting. This is such a compelling story. TELL IT!
lucky [3:23 AM] Asking every transaction to require an in focus photo capability is insane, imo
aegisker [3:23 AM] uploaded and commented on this image: IMG_20170908_092307.jpg 1 Comment Thats how it looks
lucky [3:23 AM] We need something similar to a contactless debit card
[3:24] Good luck scanning that in the dark with a £100 smartphone. Though.
aegisker [3:24 AM] For starters this is easiest solution for early adoption (edited)
workstation [3:25 AM] why not something short like vCoin. Then u could make it go off V=Vendetta, sort of has a nice mystery, anti establishment
aegisker [3:25 AM] You just need plugin for your pos software that checks your crypto wallet for received funds
[3:26] Imo this is easiest way to implement first public purchases of beer or coffee
beerfinger [3:26 AM] by the way, less is more when it comes to branding
[3:26] look at apple
[3:26] i love this example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k YouTube Brant Walsh Microsoft Re-Designs the iPod Packaging
[3:31] and there's always something to be said for ad wars... apple's david vs goliath attack ads vs microsoft is what put them back on the map
[3:31] that could be a great angle for Vertcoin... go after Bitcoin
[3:31] make fun of it the way Jobs poked at Gates
[3:32] that's just my 2 Vertcoins
submitted by beerfinger to vertcoin [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to btc [link] [comments]

Crypto Payments Are Going Mainstream

The way we pay for goods has evolved dramatically over time. Before they were rendered obsolete by gold and silver coins, cowrie shells were used as a currency in day-to-day trade. Coins, in their turn, were replaced by paper money, which eventually had to make way for plastic cards, followed by contactless payment solutions we enjoy today.
Cryptocurrencies can become the next mainstream payment solution within next decade, a recent study from Imperial College London argues. If that’s true and cryptocurrencies are to fulfill their intended use case becoming a globally accepted form of money, we should be asking when buying the weekly shop with them will be commonplace.
Going Crypto
While today you likely can’t pop into your local coffee shop and buy a latte using the contents of your Bitcoin wallet, more and more sellers are starting to accept cryptocurrency. CoinMap lists as many as 12,937 merchants that have welcomed crypto as a payment method, as of July 2018.
Most of those are small outlets, but some big names have already joined the list of crypto-accepting companies, including Microsoft, Expedia, and Craigslist. You can use Bitcoin to buy gift cards via Gyft, and those with deeper digital pockets can even purchase a ticket to space through Virgin Galactic.
It does sound promising, but paving the road to the mass adoption of cryptocurrencies is no simple task. Since many businesses are still reluctant to accept cryptocurrency, a handful of startups are coming up with solutions to implement crypto into the existing payments infrastructure.
Driving the Change
Last month, former CEO of Visa UK Marc O’Brien joined Crypterium, a cryptocurrency startup that wants to make it easy to pay with cryptocurrencies in everyday situations via any NFC terminal, by scanning QR codes or conducting online payments. The app already allows its users to top up their mobile phones with crypto, and that’s just the first step.
“Our goal is to enable our customers to actually use their cryptocurrencies for everyday payments: to do groceries, commute, or pay utility bills,” Marc explains. “Making people confident they can use bitcoin, ether and other popular currencies across millions of payment terminals globally is a necessary step for crypto to become the ‘new money.’”
O’Brien is not alone in his belief that cryptocurrencies will go mainstream in the nearest future. Fintech startups TenX and Monaco promise to issue cryptocurrency cards similar to everyday debit cards with one difference: you will be able to deposit cryptocurrencies on them. A nice option for those not willing to accept much change at once, that is instant mobile payments, and ready to wait for 2 or 3 weeks for their card to be issued and delivered.
The crucial role of companies popularizing the daily use of crypto can be backed by real figures: the said Crypterium holds the record of 70K token holders and 400K registered users.
Embracing Innovation
Those who witnessed the Interned starting out as a way to decentralize communications and evolving as the new ethos, upending how we interact, do business, and work, cannot deny the resemblance it bears to blockchain, the one that started out to decentralize value.
The way we communicate has changed and will keep changing: from words to handwritten letters, emails, and instant messaging. The same is with how we treat value; there is no looking back and trying to measure crypto assets with the same yardstick as traditional money.
Just like the Internet 30 years ago, imagine how blockchain can transform our lives. An interesting question that follows is: “What could crypto do for global commerce?” Hopefully, we’ll see within the next decade.
http://businessweekme.com/crypto-payments-are-going-mainstream/
https://t.me/umbrellaplatform
www.umbrellaplatform.com
#startup #ico #cryptocurrency #angelinvestor #angelinvestment #bitcoin #ethereum #umbrellaplatform #uplatform #entrepreneur #cryptoinvestment #cryptoinvestor #investment #crowdfunding #Startups #Entrepreneurship #VentureCapital #AngelInvestors #Fundraising #Bootstrapping #Readings #GrowthHacking #business
submitted by costadxb to u/costadxb [link] [comments]

/r/subredditdrama Drilldown June 2015

/subredditdrama Drilldown

Subreddit Similarity
/TumblrInAction 0.18334
/Games 0.16787
/cringepics 0.1585
/OutOfTheLoop 0.12033
/pcmasterrace 0.09217
Of 6674 Users Found:
Subreddit Overlapping users
/Games 1733
/TumblrInAction 1432
/cringepics 1302
/OutOfTheLoop 1050
/pcmasterrace 990
/iamverysmart 966
/cringe 911
/relationships 907
/4chan 889
/AskHistorians 874
/reactiongifs 852
/BlackPeopleTwitter 834
/thatHappened 829
/TrollXChromosomes 821
/leagueoflegends 793
/nfl 792
/circlejerk 781
/woahdude 772
/JusticePorn 766
/circlebroke 759
/changemyview 734
/quityourbullshit 723
/interestingasfuck 719
/asoiaf 704
/me_irl 700
/badhistory 691
/lewronggeneration 682
/mildlyinfuriating 668
/facepalm 664
/conspiratard 647
/Android 635
/TrueReddit 628
/soccer 625
/rage 624
/AskMen 619
/AskWomen 613
/justneckbeardthings 592
/Unexpected 581
/MapPorn 581
/hiphopheads 569
/CrappyDesign 569
/offmychest 555
/polandball 543
/europe 538
/TheBluePill 527
/creepyPMs 527
/comics 519
/HistoryPorn 517
/trees 514
/Fallout 500
/sex 499
/trashy 498
/nba 493
/CasualConversation 487
/GamerGhazi 485
/conspiracy 483
/SubredditDramaDrama 476
/truegaming 475
/forwardsfromgrandma 473
/tipofmytongue 472
/ShitRedditSays 470
/hearthstone 458
/pokemon 458
/MorbidReality 457
/buildapc 455
/skyrim 444
/oddlysatisfying 442
/anime 430
/ImGoingToHellForThis 427
/legaladvice 423
/NoStupidQuestions 418
/Steam 417
/casualiama 416
/KotakuInAction 414
/GameDeals 410
/wow 405
/whowouldwin 403
/Frugal 403
/StarWars 401
/unitedkingdom 400
/Minecraft 398
/malefashionadvice 395
/shittyfoodporn 392
/fatpeoplehate 392
/offbeat 390
/EnoughLibertarianSpam 389
/fatlogic 386
/BestOfOutrageCulture 381
/DotA2 380
/Tinder 379
/Whatcouldgowrong 377
/civ 375
/shittyaskscience 373
/self 372
/millionairemakers 372
/niceguys 370
/talesfromtechsupport 366
/MakeupAddiction 361
/CrazyIdeas 358
/comicbooks 352
/CFB 349
/NetflixBestOf 348
/TalesFromRetail 347
/PublicFreakout 338
/Drama 335
/pcgaming 333
/hockey 330
/smashbros 329
/whatisthisthing 322
/GlobalOffensive 315
/youtubehaiku 314
/thewalkingdead 314
/baseball 313
/circlebroke2 311
/CitiesSkylines 308
/MURICA 308
/scifi 307
/YouShouldKnow 305
/PS4 305
/skeptic 305
/Cooking 301
/canada 301
/AnimalsBeingJerks 299
/FanTheories 297
/AskScienceFiction 297
/tf2 289
/cats 287
/magicTCG 286
/PanicHistory 283
/delusionalartists 282
/TopMindsOfReddit 281
/GrandTheftAutoV 277
/britishproblems 276
/shittyreactiongifs 275
/apple 274
/techsupport 273
/firstworldanarchists 271
/wheredidthesodago 270
/KerbalSpaceProgram 269
/Buttcoin 268
/Marvel 267
/OkCupid 266
/SkincareAddiction 266
/TrollYChromosome 265
/im14andthisisdeep 261
/punchablefaces 259
/pettyrevenge 258
/Christianity 258
/standupshots 257
/FloridaMan 257
/TheoryOfReddit 255
/ShitAmericansSay 255
/GamePhysics 252
/TheLastAirbender 252
/CringeAnarchy 251
/Bitcoin 250
/community 250
/confession 250
/promos 249
/paradoxplaza 248
/nonononoyes 247
/Economics 246
/blunderyears 245
/CrusaderKings 239
/tumblr 234
/MensRights 232
/ProgrammerHumor 231
/holdmybeer 228
/geek 224
/shitpost 223
/BadSocialScience 220
/SquaredCircle 220
/instant_regret 220
/nononono 219
/DeepIntoYouTube 217
/oldpeoplefacebook 216
/writing 215
/heroesofthestorm 215
/ainbow 211
/shittykickstarters 210
/MetaSubredditDrama 209
/PoliticalDiscussion 209
/loseit 208
/cars 207
/Justrolledintotheshop 207
/3DS 206
/patientgamers 206
/badphilosophy 206
/betterCallSaul 206
/DoesAnybodyElse 206
/fatpeoplestories 206
/teenagers 205
/childfree 204
/Foodforthought 203
/FoodPorn 202
/gamegrumps 202
/GirlGamers 201
/startrek 200
/redditrequest 200
/FiftyFifty 200
/xboxone 199
/Fantasy 199
/undelete 197
/doctorwho 196
/socialism 196
/PropagandaPosters 195
/masseffect 194
/techsupportgore 194
/FellowKids 193
/CollegeBasketball 193
/witcher 193
/australia 191
/roosterteeth 189
/starcraft 189
/UnexpectedThugLife 188
/bestoflegaladvice 188
/Cynicalbrit 188
/lgbt 187
/tech 187
/DnD 187
/depression 187
/AnimalsBeingBros 186
/raisedbynarcissists 186
/lifehacks 185
/dragonage 185
/DestinyTheGame 184
/badlinguistics 183
/againstmensrights 183
/Libertarian 183
/theydidthemath 179
/EatCheapAndHealthy 178
/harrypotter 178
/rpg 178
/learnprogramming 177
/SandersForPresident 177
/adventuretime 177
/relationship_advice 175
/bindingofisaac 175
/DarkSouls2 174
/linux 173
/vexillology 173
/Bad_Cop_No_Donut 173
/beer 172
/FlashTV 172
/worldpolitics 172
/nyc 171
/QuotesPorn 170
/ukpolitics 170
/TheSimpsons 170
/wallpapers 169
/subredditcancer 168
/DepthHub 168
/SRSDiscussion 168
/Shitty_Car_Mods 167
/Diablo 166
/nintendo 165
/TopGear 164
/titlegore 164
/summonerschool 163
/OSHA 163
/UnresolvedMysteries 163
/watchpeopledie 163
/firstworldproblems 162
/GrandTheftAutoV_PC 162
/worldbuilding 162
/eu4 161
/tattoos 161
/femalefashionadvice 161
/MMA 160
/Drugs 159
/marvelstudios 159
/wiiu 159
/notinteresting 158
/HailCorporate 158
/boardgames 158
/ArcherFX 158
/math 157
/badscience 157
/breakingbad 157
/HighQualityGifs 157
/travel 157
/youdontsurf 156
/nostalgia 156
/darksouls 156
/ANormalDayInRussia 155
/electronic_cigarette 155
/HouseOfCards 154
/halo 154
/AbandonedPorn 153
/fantasyfootball 153
/TrueAskReddit 153
/no_sob_story 152
/gamernews 152
/montageparodies 151
/spam 150
/nocontext 150
/bicycling 150
/drunk 150
/progresspics 150
/ContagiousLaughter 148
/entertainment 148
/battlefield_4 148
/Guildwars2 147
/Boxing 147
/worstof 147
/MilitaryPorn 146
/gallifrey 146
/ProtectAndServe 146
/SRSsucks 145
/arrow 144
/ExpectationVsReality 144
/Damnthatsinteresting 144
/Negareddit 143
/Gaming4Gamers 143
/Frisson 141
/openbroke 141
/horror 141
/badpolitics 141
/Parenting 141
/fullmoviesonyoutube 140
/humor 139
/dadjokes 139
/batman 139
/ShitRConservativeSays 138
/amiugly 138
/Military 138
/gentlemanboners 137
/ThePopcornStand 137
/terriblefacebookmemes 137
/Eve 135
/sysadmin 135
/Eyebleach 134
/MechanicalKeyboards 133
/xkcd 133
/southpark 133
/CombatFootage 132
/gaybros 132
/wikipedia 129
/TrueFilm 129
/shield 129
/NotTimAndEric 128
/tall 128
/behindthegifs 127
/badeconomics 127
/shittyrobots 127
/IASIP 127
/bloodborne 127
/badlegaladvice 126
/Guitar 126
/muacirclejerk 126
/netflix 126
/guns 126
/running 126
/DCcomics 125
/battlestations 125
/circlejerkcopypasta 124
/Conservative 124
/Metal 124
/trollabot 124
/SRSGaming 124
/TiADiscussion 123
/freebies 123
/ireland 123
/motorcycles 123
/Seattle 122
/jobs 122
/lego 121
/iphone 121
/twitchplayspokemon 121
/futurama 119
/dayz 119
/Cyberpunk 119
/cordcutters 119
/mylittlepony 118
/keto 118
/dogs 118
/chicago 118
/buildapcsales 117
/classic4chan 117
/answers 117
/wowthissubexists 117
/toronto 117
/madmen 116
/badtattoos 116
/CityPorn 116
/GTAV 116
/Roadcam 116
/BuyItForLife 115
/skyrimmods 115
/softwaregore 115
/AMA 115
/LadyBoners 115
/syriancivilwar 115
/trendingsubreddits 114
/itookapicture 114
/boston 114
/photography 114
/IdiotsFightingThings 113
/CatsStandingUp 113
/TrueAtheism 113
/dogecoin 113
/PerfectTiming 113
/webdev 113
/Anarchism 113
/WebGames 112
/gonewild 112
/dwarffortress 111
/ifyoulikeblank 110
/gamedev 110
/popping 110
/zelda 110
/asmr 110
/AgainstGamerGate 110
/frugalmalefashion 109
/AskCulinary 109
/DebateReligion 109
/ShouldIbuythisgame 109
/LivestreamFails 109
/business 109
/Feminism 109
/baltimore 108
/thalassophobia 108
/blackpeoplegifs 108
/Awwducational 108
/explainlikeIAmA 108
/islam 108
/botsrights 107
/HumanPorn 107
/totalwar 107
/EliteDangerous 107
/JonTron 107
/findareddit 107
/rickandmorty 107
/law 106
/PurplePillDebate 106
/ScenesFromAHat 105
/magicskyfairy 105
/RoomPorn 105
/ffxiv 105
/OneY 104
/psychology 104
/nsfw 104
/misleadingthumbnails 104
/aviation 104
/electronicmusic 103
/speedrun 103
/minimalism 103
/linguistics 103
/RealGirls 103
/blackladies 102
/TumblrAtRest 102
/Pareidolia 102
/slowcooking 102
/ArtisanVideos 102
/Anarcho_Capitalism 101
/vita 101
/vegan 101
/RandomActsOfGaming 100
/WeAreTheMusicMakers 100
/serialpodcast 100
/formula1 100
/outside 100
/ledootgeneration 99
/Borderlands 99
/investing 99
/gardening 99
/NeutralPolitics 99
/pussypassdenied 99
/AskSocialScience 98
/engineering 98
/WastedGifs 97
/FancyFollicles 97
/UkrainianConflict 97
/stevenuniverse 96
/rant 96
/LearnUselessTalents 96
/Xcom 96
/everymanshouldknow 95
/chemicalreactiongifs 95
/AndroidQuestions 95
/Portland 95
/ForeverAlone 94
/ofcoursethatsathing 94
/progressive 93
/paydaytheheist 93
/bodybuilding 93
/google 92
/xxfitness 92
/Rateme 92
/androidapps 92
/LetsNotMeet 92
/NSFW_GIF 92
/LosAngeles 92
/gaymers 92
/WatchItForThePlot 92
/weeabootales 91
/PandR 91
/thesims 91
/Warthunder 91
/StartledCats 90
/lotr 90
/SuicideWatch 90
/manga 90
/shutupandtakemymoney 90
/moviescirclejerk 89
/test 89
/india 89
/indianpeoplefacebook 89
/TalesFromYourServer 89
/projecteternity 89
/Design 89
/indieheads 89
/copypasta 89
/RedditLaqueristas 89
/beards 89
/headphones 89
/Celebs 88
/cscareerquestions 88
/CompetitiveHS 88
/LetsTalkMusic 88
/modnews 87
/MLS 87
/PS3 87
/secretsanta 87
/MonsterHunter 87
/badwomensanatomy 87
/web_design 87
/RedditDayOf 87
/askphilosophy 87
/DaystromInstitute 86
/AndroidGaming 86
/Anxiety 86
/AsABlackMan 86
/sweden 86
/Catholicism 85
/dbz 84
/Scotland 84
/Physics 84
/Frugal_Jerk 84
/Planetside 84
/BadEverything 84
/environment 84
/Patriots 83
/IWantToLearn 83
/SiliconValleyHBO 83
/Twitch 83
/AnimalCrossing 83
/washingtondc 83
/literature 83
/windows 83
/gif 83
/socialskills 83
/london 82
/whatsthisbug 82
/redditgetsdrawn 82
/ShittyLifeProTips 82
/SampleSize 81
/PoliticalHumor 81
/GunsAreCool 81
/gamingsuggestions 81
/suggestmeabook 80
/itsaunixsystem 80
/educationalgifs 80
/EDC 80
/TheRedPill 80
/ideasfortheadmins 79
/recipes 79
/FemmeThoughts 79
/starcitizen 79
/spaceporn 78
/short 78
/isrconspiracyracist 78
/Terraria 78
/Naruto 78
/mindcrack 78
/japan 78
/lostgeneration 77
/bodyweightfitness 77
/AskTrollX 77
/Coffee 77
/FinalFantasy 76
/Autos 76
/woodworking 76
/questionablecontent 76
/whitepeoplegifs 76
/amiibo 75
/printSF 75
/Glitch_in_the_Matrix 75
/MarkMyWords 75
/oculus 75
/BestOfReports 74
/Braveryjerk 74
/Atlanta 74
/California 74
/inthenews 74
/EverythingScience 74
/2007scape 74
/MadeMeSmile 73
/languagelearning 73
/cosplay 73
/ClashOfClans 72
/makemychoice 72
/AskEngineers 72
/DarkNetMarkets 72
/vinyl 72
/shittyprogramming 72
/vegetarian 72
/ArtefactPorn 71
/ADHD 71
/killthosewhodisagree 71
/starbound 71
/gravityfalls 71
/Python 71
/EngineeringStudents 71
/texas 71
/hardware 71
/Warframe 71
/bisexual 71
/Homebrewing 71
/actuallesbians 71
/AlienBlue 70
/ImaginaryMonsters 70
/subredditoftheday 70
/TheGirlSurvivalGuide 70
/jailbreak 70
/pathofexile 69
/metalgearsolid 69
/Health 69
/awwwtf 69
/AnimalsBeingDerps 69
/StreetFights 69
/Advice 69
/houston 69
/ThingsCutInHalfPorn 68
/SCP 68
/bestofworldstar 68
/SuggestALaptop 68
/mountandblade 67
/MLPLounge 67
/streetwear 67
/BasicIncome 67
/Austin 67
/corgi 67
/geopolitics 67
/Fireteams 67
/windowsphone 67
/compsci 66
/carporn 66
/Defenders 66
/quotes 66
/HipHopImages 66
/thenetherlands 66
/KitchenConfidential 66
/classicalmusic 66
/asktransgender 66
/askgaybros 66
/malehairadvice 66
/ShitWehraboosSay 66
/AskUK 65
/myfriendwantstoknow 65
/Entrepreneur 65
/runescape 65
/bad_religion 65
/GifSound 65
/IndieGaming 65
/AskFeminists 65
/Aquariums 65
/RetroFuturism 64
submitted by is_this_working to MetaSubredditDrama [link] [comments]

How to Buy Bitcoin on Coinbase 2020 - Easy Tutorial - YouTube Best Way To Buy Bitcoin Instantly (I Ditched Coinbase ... BUY BITCOIN WITH A CREDIT/DEBIT CARD - YouTube How to buy Bitcoin using a Bitcoin ATM - BCB ATM - YouTube

Use Bitcoin or altcoins on Costa Coffee UK. Pay with Bitcoin, Lightning, Dash, Dogecoin, Litecoin or Ethereum. Instant email delivery. No account required. Buy bitcoin and crypto instantly! Gemini is a simple, elegant, and secure platform to build your crypto portfolio. Buying, selling, and storing your cryptocurrency has never been this seamless. $13,108.75 per bitcoin Don't worry, you can buy a fraction of a coin. Welcome! We’re very excited to have you. coincafe strives to be the fastest and easiest way to get Bitcoin, whether you're in NYC or anywhere else in the world. We pride ourselves on our excellent customer service. Got a question? Just call us. Or use live chat, email, or even text message. Our response time is usually ... Coffee beans, Barista grade instant and Cold brew drinks! Currency GBP £ AUD $ EUR € GBP £ USD $ ... Brewed in the UK for a guilt-free boost on-the-go. Buy Now. good beans. not has-beans. We 100% guarantee our coffee beans have not been through the digestive tract of an animal before you drink it. You’re welcome. BUY NOW. Trustpilot. Barista Grade Instant Coffee. Instant coffee you won't ... You can buy any goods for BTC: from coffee in the near cafe to new shoes in online clothes-shops, paintings in art galleries, and even realty. Check Atomic’s Ultimate guide on how to spend Bitcoin smartly. 4. Donate Bitcoin. Bitcoin is one of the most popular methods to participate in charity, because of it’s decentralized nature and ...

[index] [4065] [38350] [26047] [4470] [45108] [1172] [22625] [31505] [47771] [49980]

How to Buy Bitcoin on Coinbase 2020 - Easy Tutorial - YouTube

FOR BUSINESS OR PROMOTIONAL INQUIRIES ( [email protected]) BUY BITCOINS WITH A CREDIT/DEBIT CARD 1) https://cash.me/$cashwithbob 2) https://buycoinn... https://bcb-atm.com/ https://bcb-atm.com/ In this video we show you how to buy bitcoin using one of our ATMs. Subscribe to our channel for future videos and ... Get a free $ 10 bonus buying Bitcoin on Coinbase: https://www.coinbase.com/join/tezza_2 How to Buy Bitcoin on Coinbase 2020 - Easy Tutorial - - - - - - - - -... You'll receive $10 in free bitcoin by signing up with this link: https://goo.gl/b1edpv Coinbase now supports over 30+ countries. More than just US Dollars. Coinbase is available in many countries ... In this episode of Crypto Over Coffee, Hashoshi breaks down whether you should buy bitcoin now or wait, a critical DeFi vulnerability, ChainLink partnerships, new crypto adoption, and more!

#