Get a Bitcoin Wallet BrozNews.ORG

How do I "summon" android wallet QR code?

I am trying to buy bitcoin with cash on bitcoin atm. The bitcoin atm requires me to scan QR code from the screen on my android smartphone.
If I understand this correctly, this QR code that should appear on my android btc wallet is the 30 symbol long address that is my digital wallet. I have Mycellium, Blockchain and "Bitcoin" android wallets but I dont know how to do it with any of them.
Yesterday I tried it with Blockchain wallet but I failed and when I got home and did further research it seems I need to send selfie and ID to real person who will review and approve me so I can use it. I read that this is needed becose the Blockchain wallet allows trading.
I dont want to trade, so I did quick google and I read Mycelium wallet allows usage without sending ID and selfies for approval. I have around 1 hour left to figure this out, please help me, how can I make this QR code appear so I can buy bitcoins?
I found this QR code thingy when trying things in Mycelium. There is this option "Export accound keys" in upper right corner. There is public and private key and three versions each = xpub, ypub and zpub... each one of the 6 different combinations shows different QR code on screen. This is that QR code that I need to use to buy bitcoin on atm? Should I use public or private key? Which of the 3 different versions should I use?
submitted by Modaphilio to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Ways to explore the blockchain

I looked up an old address I had and saw which was my change address because the other one the utxo was still at the same address. I wanted to keep watching it to see when it moves and how, but also to try to track my own outputs. Is there a way to save only a few transactions or any kind of GUI to watch the splintering and combining of outputs so I can see more than one transaction at a time? I have used wasabi to manage unspent outputs on desktop. On iOS I haven't found a client that let's you view outputs or create new accounts to keep outputs separated. On Android, Mycelium allows you to create different accounts for different utxos, but then there's no way to combine them. Another route is to "view unspent outputs" from the menu on Accounts page and create a transaction that matches perfectly the size and fee to create (1 in 1 out) transactions or even (x in 1 out) transactions. I would guess bitcoin core cli has the more powerful coin control mechanisms.
tldr- Are there tools to help view the btc blockchain? Also share if you have any other coin control mechanics
submitted by Western0nion to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Beginner's Guide to Trading Crypto. Part 11

Beginner's Guide to Trading Crypto. Part 11

Money Loves Security And So Do Cryptos: A Brief Guide Down Crypto Wallet Lane

Since time immemorial people have been keeping their money and valuables in safe places. Be they purses, clay pots full of coins buried in their backyards or treasure chests hidden in caves with piles of bones strewn around to keep unwanted visitors at bay, they means conceived for safekeeping hoarded valuables are just as creative as they are limitless.
The advent of cryptocurrencies as a new class of valuables and assets instantly spawned the need to keep them safe from the clammy hands of criminals. The logical solution was to develop wallets that would be used to keep cryptos safe. As a result, a multitude of wallets have emerged offering all kinds of added services to their users while remaining means of storage at heart.
There is a huge variety of wallets available: Coinomi, GreenAddress, Blockchain.info, Atomic, Exodus, Jaxx, Electrum, Copay, Bread, Airbitz, Armory, Mycelium, Blockchain Wallet and dozens of others, each offering their services to suit any taste.
https://preview.redd.it/tai1ax5q3u341.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a33622327c7e52eea02e77f7c843423e6aeba12

Types Of Wallets

There are several types of wallets available to users and everyone must decide for themselves which one suits their needs best.
Hardware wallets: These are the most secure and reliable wallets available, since they are not connected to the internet at all. Hardware wallets are like flash memory cards that store the user’s cryptocurrencies and access offline. A bright example is the Trezor wallet, which is deemed to be impermeable to hackers. Unless the user loses the device itself, it is safe to assume that the cryptos will stay on it indefinitely and no one will ever gain access to them.
Online, Web or Hot wallets: These are online services, or online wallets that offer to store the user’s cryptos online with direct access to the internet at any time. In essence, online wallets are online accounts in which users store their funds. The risks are very high, since exchange wallets are routinely being hacked and the cryptos stored therein stolen.
Desktop wallets: Desktop wallets are software programs that can be downloaded and installed on a PC and will only be accessible from the device they were downloaded onto. The risks are the same as with hot wallets and another added inconvenience is that loss of the device or loss of access to it means loss of all cryptos stored on it.
Mobile wallets: Mobile wallets are software programs that can be downloaded onto a mobile device, such as a phone or a tablet. There are wallets for Android and iPhones and all of them bear even greater risks than hot wallets. Since mobile devices are susceptible to theft and a variety of viruses, it is extremely risky to store cryptos on them. Though access to the cryptos without private keys is impossible, unless the user stores them on the device, loss of all cryptos with the mobile device is guaranteed.
Paper wallets: Paper wallets are offline cold storage for cryptocurrencies. This is by far the safest means of storing cryptos, which includes printing the public and private keys on a piece of paper and storing it in a safe place. The keys are printed in the form of QR codes for convenience. With paper wallets, the user has complete control over their funds and the only risk lies in losing the piece of paper with the keys.
Other types of wallets: Apart from the five main types of wallets, there were attempts at creating other types of services, such as atomic wallets using atomic swap technology and even combinations of mobile/hot/cold wallets. Despite limited success, hybrids models of wallets did not become popular.

Main Pros And Cons

When looking at wallets and their main advantages and disadvantages, it is easiest to speak of the division between cold and hot wallets.
When speaking of cold wallets, such as the Trezor Bitcoin wallet and Ledger Nano S or X, the same issue will be observed, and that is the fact that such wallets can be physically lost. Though anyone who ever finds them will never be able to gain access to the stored cryptos without the private keys (unless they are pasted on the device), loss of all cryptos on the device is guaranteed. In addition, cold wallets can be difficult to install and are inconvenient for frequent use.
https://preview.redd.it/ff2dukdx3u341.png?width=1021&format=png&auto=webp&s=f36cdc26b13f33433c5124f5e5a67c0e40f9dbf4
Hot wallets are far more susceptible to risk than their cold counterparts. Though hot storage is much faster and convenient with a wide variety of options from Coinbase to Blockchain.info, the risk of cybercrime runs high. Mobile or desktop storage is also considered to be hot storage and is also risky, if the device is damaged or destroyed.

Bitcoin Problems

Bitcoin, as the firstborn cryptocurrency, was born with a number of defects. One of the main problems of the king of cryptos is the yet unsolved scalability problem. This refers to the limit on the amount of transactions the Bitcoin network can process due to the limited size of and frequency of blocks in the Bitcoin blockchain.
Said problem poses some difficulties to all Bitcoin users and leads to what is known as backlog in the blockchain. The backlog leads to long queues of transactions in the system. With the average transaction time in the Bitcoin blockchain being around 7 transactions per second and the theoretical maximum standing at 27, it is not difficult to understand how long users of the blockchain have to wait for their transactions to pass in times of heightened demand – the time is in the hours and sometimes even days.

Bitcoin Wallets Review

Since Bitcoin is the most popular cryptocurrency on the market, it is logical to judge wallets by their support of the first cryptocurrency. As such, the following will be a brief review of some of the best and most popular Bitcoin wallets on the market.
Online Bitcoin Wallets
Online or web wallets are the most popular ones out there and the best Bitcoin wallet overall is widely considered to be Blockchain.info, which is easily accessible and convenient for everyday use with good security. As an anonymous Bitcoin wallet, Coinbase follows in the lead with its ability to store a multitude of various coins, but with the same security risks that are inherent to all hot wallets.
Android Bitcoin Wallets
Android is the most popular mobile system in the world and plays host to a number of good mobile wallets. The best Android Bitcoin wallet is widely considered to be the Electrum Bitcoin wallet with its excellent reputation, good security and convenience. Though Electrum has some occasional glitches, they are never critical. Another excellent wallet for Android is the Coinomi wallet with its support for a wide variety of cryptos and excellent user support, which even allows for restore options using special phrases. Coinomi has its issues as well, such as occasional exchange glitches, but the many pros outweigh the cons.
Bitcoin Hardware Wallets
The undisputed leaders as the best hardware wallets for Bitcoin are Ledger Nano X and S, Trezor T and Trezor One, and Keepkey. Bitcoin hardware wallets are comparable in their security, accessibility and usability. The difference is mainly in the price, which ranges from $165 for Trzeor T to $59 for the Ledger Nano S model. In fact, the Ledger Bitcoin wallet is often called the king of hardware wallets. The KeepKey Bitcoin wallet is the in the top three hardware wallets as a convenient and stylish device. Though KeepKey supports over 40 assets, it still lacks coin support.
Bitcoin Wallets For iPhone
iPhone’s iOS system is the second most popular for mobile devices in the world and has support for some good wallets as well. The best iOS Bitcoin wallet for iPhone is considered to be the Abra software, which offers credit card support for topping up crypto balances and a good user interface, which is even more oriented at exchanges. The next software is Edge, formerly known as Airbitz. The Edge wallet is best known for high security and good user-friendliness along with multi-currency support.
Bitcoin Wallets For Windows
Bitcoin wallets for PC are very popular and Windows is leading the way with some excellent offers for wallets. Atomic is by far the most advanced and the best option for Windows users as it offers Atomic swaps technology as its basis. The application offers a wide variety of operations and supports over 300 cryptocurrencies. Exodus is the second most popular choice as a desktop only wallet with support for Bitcoin and many other altcoins. Exodus offers its users a good interface and it is free for use.
Bitcoin Wallets For Mac
Since Atomic and Exodus are cross-platform wallets, they can be used on Windows and Mac. Apart from them, there are also Jaxx and Electrum, which can be used on Mac. Jaxx is a multi-currency wallet with support for around 40 cryptos and has a PIN feature. In addition, Jaxx is free for use. Electrum is one of the oldest desktop wallets and is a lightweight wallet that does not require the full blockchain to operate, meaning less storage needed for its operation. The wallet requires a PIN and is essentially a desktop bank with good security and usability. Electrum is also a Bitcoin wallet for iPad, since it can be used on mobile platforms.
Bitcoin Paper Wallet
Since storing cryptos online on exchange or hot wallets or even on devices is risky, it is oftentimes more convenient to use a simple printer to print out the keys and store them. BitAddress offers a convenient and easy to use, step by step guide to creating a paper wallet with the added benefit of sleeping in peace, known that nothing and no one will ever threaten your Bitcoins.
https://preview.redd.it/bh7wi0d64u341.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=9f7fbd269eea43ac3b8897ad470553ba8b3c730d

Checklist

When embarking on the journey of creating your first wallet, think well of which type to use. The type will depend on the priorities that stand before the user. If security is paramount, then paper or cold storage wallets are the go-to solution. If frequency of use is the name of the day, then hot wallets and their inherent risks are the best way to go.
The most frequent questions related to wallets are how to add money to a Bitcoin wallet and how to set up a Bitcoin wallet. Both questions have no single answer, as each wallet offers its own instructions on how to top up balances and how to set them up. Therefore it is recommended to study all instructions carefully prior to operation.
Either way, there is no silver bullet and some features will have to be sacrificed in deciding how to store cryptocurrencies. The one thing that is constant is the need to store Bitcoins and cryptos and make use of them.

Check us out at https://moontrader.io
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MoonTraderPlatform
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MoonTrader_io
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/19203733
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/Moontrader_official/
Telegram: https://t.me/moontrader_news_en

Originally posted on our blog.
submitted by MoonTrader_io to Moontrader_official [link] [comments]

Bitcoin wallet for android pin help

So a couple months ago I made the switch to android amd transferred 250mBTC or so I had in my bread wallet on iPhone. I went to spend some coin for the first time a few weeks ago but could not guess my spending pin.
I usually use the same or similar pin and wouldn't have made it something I'd have forgotten. If I had I would have written it down (maybe). I've tried pretty much any combo of any thing I would have made it and still I get invalid pin.
My phone is rooted. Is there any chance something may have gotten to it and changed the pin? I emailed bitcoin wallet developers and they said basically there's no way of recovering the pin but I wouldn't expect a company to reveal a chink in their armor. Any way to crack, bypass, or otherwise exploit this? It's only like 50 bucks so I'm not losing my mind just mildly annoyed.
Any comments not involving what a dumb ass I am for not writing down my pin would be greatly appreciated.
submitted by totallysunkdude to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I tested KeepKey + Mycelium + SegWit so you don't have to.

TLDR: you can send and receive Bitcoin to and from native SegWit (Bech32) addresses using KeepKey + Mycelium, but not using KeepKey + KeepKey client (yet?).
Mycelium can import the extended public key (xpub) from your KeepKey, this allows you to get a watch-only wallet on your phone, that can spend only if you connect your KeepKey to the phone. The xpub is not the private key, the private key never leaves KeepKey, you can not spend from just the xpub, cold storage is not compromised. It's a nice combination of the accessibility of an app, and the security of a hardware wallet. My favorite feature is being able to watch the value of my Bitcoin moon plummet from the comfort of my phone. The Mycelium Android wallet finally got it's SegWit update this month, and I used about a buck in Bitcoin to test the new address format.
Importing a KeepKey xpub into Mycelium
The first thing to note is that if you already had a KeepKey account in Mycelium before Mycelium's SegWit update you'll have to remove that account from Mycelium and reimport it to enable SegWit support.
To import your KeepKey’s xpub into Mycelium you need to connect the KeepKey to your phone using a USB OTG adapter, you can get one for about 10 bucks if one did not already come with your phone. When connected, open Mycelium, go to the “accounts” tab, tap the icon of a key with a “+”, tap “advanced”, tap “KeepKey”, and enter your pin.
(If you have enabled passphrase protection on your KeepKey then at this point Mycelium will also ask you to enter the passphrase now. You can read this page for instructions on how to enable/disable passphrase protection: https://help.keepkey.com/how-to-guides/how-to-disable-a-passphrase If you want to enable it change the command from “(false)” to “(true)”. This is an advanced feature so only use this if you know what you are doing, enabling and disabling it has been very flaky in my experience, but once enabled the passphrase feature itself works without error)
Accounts
Mycelium will now scan KeepKey for accounts, if you have multiple accounts on the KeepKey and want to add all of them to Mycelium you will have to go through these steps multiple times to add them one at a time. An account with zero Bitcoin will not be detected by Mycelium.
You can give the account you are adding to Mycelium a label. Mycelium will display a KeepKey logo next to the account name in the accounts tab to indicate this is a watch-only account from a KeepKey.
What can I do with an imported account in Mycelium?
Without having your KeepKey connected you can: -View your Bitcoin balance and it’s fiat value. -View all transactions including those done through the KeepKey Client app. -Generate receiving addresses in all three formats, legacy P2PKH (starting with 1), SegWit wrapped P2SH (starting with 3), SegWit native Bech32 (starting with bc1). -Receive Bitcoin on said addresses and view the incoming transactions before during and after they are confirmed. Note that Mycelium will default to generating SegWit wrapped P2SH receiving addresses, you can change the default to SegWit Native Bech32, but you can not change the default to legacy P3PKH addresses, this is important.
How do I receive Bitcoin with Mycelium?
Choose the KeepKey account from the accounts screen, tap the “receive” button and it will display a SegWit Wrapped P2SH address by default. You can switch to a Legacy or Bech32 address from this screen, and switch the default from P2SH to Bech32, but not to Legacy. This means that by default you will always be receiving Bitcoin on a SegWit address.
How do I send Bitcoin from Mycelium?
In order to send Bitcoin from Mycelium you can tap “send”, enter a receiving address, choose an amount and a fee setting. Next you will have to connect your KeepKey to the phone with the OTG adapter, enter the pin, and enter the passphrase if your KeepKey has one. The transaction will be displayed on the KeepKey’s own display, you should verify the address, amount and fee. Confirm the transaction through the physical button on the KeepKey, twice. Your transaction will be broadcast, you can now disconnect the KeepKey.
How secure is this?
The private key never leaves the KeepKey, cold storage is never compromised. The only way to sign a transaction and send Bitcoin is by connecting the KeepKey, entering the pin to unlock it, and entering the passphrase to further unlock it if you have one enabled, and then using the physical button on the KeepKey to confirm the transaction.
What does not work?
And now finally, the reason I’m making this post, what does not work. At the time of writing the KeepKey client app for Chrome is capable of sending to SegWit P2SH and Bech32 addresses. The KeepKey Client app is however not capable of generating SegWit receiving addresses, nor can it view the balance of SegWit P2SH or SegWit Bech32 addresses. It also can not send Bitcoin that was received on these addresses.
This means that if you use Mycelium to receive Bitcoin on a SegWit address, the KeepKey Client app does not understand this transaction. The KeepKey Client app will not add the balance of this address to your total balance, if this was the only transaction in the wallet it will show a zero balance. The KeepKey Client app will not be able to send Bitcoin that was received on these addresses, you can only do that using Mycelium. This can lead to confusing situations where Mycelium and the KeepKey Client app show two different total balances for the same wallet, because Mycelium sees the real balance, and the KeepKey Client app only sees the non-SegWit addresses balance.
I fully expect a future update to the KeepKey Client Chrome app to enable full SegWit support so the above will no longer be an issue, but right now receiving Bitcoin on SegWit addresses through Mycelium means you can no longer effectively use the KeepKey Client app until it is updated.
submitted by De_Wilde_Weldoener to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I tested KeepKey + Mycelium + SegWit so you don't have to.

TLDR: you can send and receive Bitcoin to and from native SegWit (Bech32) addresses using KeepKey + Mycelium, but not using KeepKey + KeepKey client (yet?).
Mycelium can import the extended public key (xpub) from your KeepKey, this allows you to get a watch-only wallet on your phone, that can spend only if you connect your KeepKey to the phone. The xpub is not the private key, the private key never leaves KeepKey, you can not spend from just the xpub, cold storage is not compromised. It's a nice combination of the accessibility of an app, and the security of a hardware wallet. My favorite feature is being able to watch the value of my Bitcoin moon plummet from the comfort of my phone. The Mycelium Android wallet finally got it's SegWit update this month, and I used about a buck in Bitcoin to test the new address format.
Importing a KeepKey xpub into Mycelium
The first thing to note is that if you already had a KeepKey account in Mycelium before Mycelium's SegWit update you'll have to remove that account from Mycelium and reimport it to enable SegWit support.
To import your KeepKey’s xpub into Mycelium you need to connect the KeepKey to your phone using a USB OTG adapter, you can get one for about 10 bucks if one did not already come with your phone. When connected, open Mycelium, go to the “accounts” tab, tap the icon of a key with a “+”, tap “advanced”, tap “KeepKey”, and enter your pin.
(If you have enabled passphrase protection on your KeepKey then at this point Mycelium will also ask you to enter the passphrase now. You can read this page for instructions on how to enable/disable passphrase protection: https://help.keepkey.com/how-to-guides/how-to-disable-a-passphrase If you want to enable it change the command from “(false)” to “(true)”. This is an advanced feature so only use this if you know what you are doing, enabling and disabling it has been very flaky in my experience, but once enabled the passphrase feature itself works without error)
Accounts
Mycelium will now scan KeepKey for accounts, if you have multiple accounts on the KeepKey and want to add all of them to Mycelium you will have to go through these steps multiple times to add them one at a time. An account with zero Bitcoin will not be detected by Mycelium.
You can give the account you are adding to Mycelium a label. Mycelium will display a KeepKey logo next to the account name in the accounts tab to indicate this is a watch-only account from a KeepKey.
What can I do with an imported account in Mycelium?
Without having your KeepKey connected you can: -View your Bitcoin balance and it’s fiat value. -View all transactions including those done through the KeepKey Client app. -Generate receiving addresses in all three formats, legacy P2PKH (starting with 1), SegWit wrapped P2SH (starting with 3), SegWit native Bech32 (starting with bc1). -Receive Bitcoin on said addresses and view the incoming transactions before during and after they are confirmed. Note that Mycelium will default to generating SegWit wrapped P2SH receiving addresses, you can change the default to SegWit Native Bech32, but you can not change the default to legacy P3PKH addresses, this is important.
How do I receive Bitcoin with Mycelium?
Choose the KeepKey account from the accounts screen, tap the “receive” button and it will display a SegWit Wrapped P2SH address by default. You can switch to a Legacy or Bech32 address from this screen, and switch the default from P2SH to Bech32, but not to Legacy. This means that by default you will always be receiving Bitcoin on a SegWit address.
How do I send Bitcoin from Mycelium?
In order to send Bitcoin from Mycelium you can tap “send”, enter a receiving address, choose an amount and a fee setting. Next you will have to connect your KeepKey to the phone with the OTG adapter, enter the pin, and enter the passphrase if your KeepKey has one. The transaction will be displayed on the KeepKey’s own display, you should verify the address, amount and fee. Confirm the transaction through the physical button on the KeepKey, twice. Your transaction will be broadcast, you can now disconnect the KeepKey.
How secure is this?
The private key never leaves the KeepKey, cold storage is never compromised. The only way to sign a transaction and send Bitcoin is by connecting the KeepKey, entering the pin to unlock it, and entering the passphrase to further unlock it if you have one enabled, and then using the physical button on the KeepKey to confirm the transaction.
What does not work?
And now finally, the reason I’m making this post, what does not work. At the time of writing the KeepKey client app for Chrome is capable of sending to SegWit P2SH and Bech32 addresses. The KeepKey Client app is however not capable of generating SegWit receiving addresses, nor can it view the balance of SegWit P2SH or SegWit Bech32 addresses. It also can not send Bitcoin that was received on these addresses.
This means that if you use Mycelium to receive Bitcoin on a SegWit address, the KeepKey Client app does not understand this transaction. The KeepKey Client app will not add the balance of this address to your total balance, if this was the only transaction in the wallet it will show a zero balance. The KeepKey Client app will not be able to send Bitcoin that was received on these addresses, you can only do that using Mycelium. This can lead to confusing situations where Mycelium and the KeepKey Client app show two different total balances for the same wallet, because Mycelium sees the real balance, and the KeepKey Client app only sees the non-SegWit addresses balance.
I fully expect a future update to the KeepKey Client Chrome app to enable full SegWit support so the above will no longer be an issue, but right now receiving Bitcoin on SegWit addresses through Mycelium means you can no longer effectively use the KeepKey Client app until it is updated.
submitted by De_Wilde_Weldoener to keepkey [link] [comments]

Exchanges & Proof of Keys: A Ramble on Operationalizing "Not your Keys, Not your Bitcoin."

This started as a thread reply about banks being a pain in the ass but per usual I got diarrhea of the mouth and it turned into a wall of text appropriate for it's own post. There's been a lot of talk about exchanges doing some unsavory things and a recent call to pull what crypto you have off from custodial intermediaries by January 3, a so-called "Proof of Keys" movement. This is all IME/IMO, obv., and aimed toward new crypto users or users who havenever held their own keys. If you have better ideas or disagree, please put them in the comments 👇
I've been mucking about in exchanges trying to find a good balance of user friendliness and control over crypto, especially for newcomers for whom decentralized exchanges are yet another new and possibly nerve wracking thing to learn. Gemini now has a slick minimalist Android app with none of the mandatory 17 day/30 day/until-you-reach-retirement holds that Coinbase imposes despite my money being cleared by the bank. As soon as the ACH transaction clears on Gemini, which is usually a matter of a few days, your crypto is able to be transferred to your wallet of choice. Yes, they need ID and have 1% fees for buying/selling, but it took maybe an hour to confirm my ID and the lack of arbitrary holds seem like they're interested in preserving user control over crypto rather than forcing people to hold their keys in a glorified crypto bank.
You can skip the centralized exchanges entirely by using Bisq once you have a general comfort level with using bitcoin. Until then, centralized exchanges aren't ideal but are necessary until adoption is a bit more widespread and bitcoin is routinely used as a medium of exchange person to person.
Getting your crypto off exchanges and in a wallet is a pretty basic principle--not your keys, not your crypto--but one certain to make people a little nervous with all the horror stories of losing bitcoin. LedgeTrezor makes wallet creation & secure storage pretty foolproof and it really surprising to me that there aren't more mobile wallets with Ledger integration. Monerujo is kind of amazing with its seamless Ledger integration so private keys are never kept on your phone, AFAIK Mycelium is the best Ledger integrated Bitcoin wallet on Android; maybe someone can recommend another.
I just carry a tiny cable and have an USB adapter for my phone. After that it works just like the Ledger Live App, confirm address, confirm transaction on Ledger, good to go. I keep a couple Ledgers, one for a daily drivechequeing the others for storage/savings.
My recommendation is ask fobuy yourself a Ledger for the Holidays, they're 63£ currently manufacturer direct 70£ on Amazon UK or 50$ on Amazon US. You can even get it at a discount of 15%+ if you use Purse.io and pay in BTC. I've done all my holiday shopping this way and it's worked beautifully. I suppose you could also spend your gifted Amazon gift cards for quick and easy BTC at a premium, but I digress. Remember to get a USB to microUSB/USB-C adapter if you want to use it with your phone.
Setup your Ledger, know how to store your seed phrase and ask if you don't, then once your funds have cleared send a test payment of 5 fiat units from the exchange to your ledger. You should generally avoid typing the address by hand, always copy/paste or even better use the exchange/wallet's app to scan the QR code on your computer screen. Once that transfer comes through consider entering the wrong pin three times on the Ledger to wipe it. Why? Well, here's the things that can go wrong and how to fix them. These are basic crypto skills for managing your money that every crypto user needs to practice at least once, if for no other reason than to decrease fear and increase user confidence in their ability to manage their crypto themselves.
By all means use your own ingenuity, but I would recommend replicating 1) Lost Pin, 2) Lost/Stolen/Damaged device, 3) Lost recovery seed phrase. 1 or 2 in combination with 3 is fatal.
Fairly straightforward, first we'll pretend we've derped out and entered the wrong pin three times then follow the instructions to recover the device using your seed phrase.
Second we pretend we've lost our device on the train or somesuch and need to use our seed phrase to import our keys to a temporary wallet while we're waiting for a new hardware wallet. It's simple, get Mycelium on your phone and use your recovery phrase to import your keys: from fresh install select Restore Backup then 24 words, pretty self-explanatory from there.
See how easy that is to gain access to all your crypto again using those 24 words? Anyone who has those words can do the same, so you don't put it in a computer or snap a picture of it and upload it to the cloud or put it under your mousepad for safe keeping with the rest of your passwords (OK, almost nobody but my grandma does this, but I'm making a point m'kay?).
Now we'll pretend we did something really, profoundly, inconceivably stupid like put our seed into a text file on a computer that then crashed (you know, rather than writing it down on paper and checking it twice like Saint Nick) and now have to get our crypto off the device forthwith so we can ditch the old wallet and make a new wallet with a new recovery phrase that we'll treat right this time. From the previous two examples we can see how essential that seed phrase is and we've already entered it into our phone once so for optimal security and to test losing that seed phrase we're going to generate our final, for keeps, gen-u-ine wallet on our Ledger.
Wipe it by entering the wrong pin three times then follow these instructions to reinitialize the device. Essentially plug it in, start the app, and select Configure as New Device. Record your seed phrase correctly and keep it safe. Maybe put a second copy in another secure location. Heck, you can even store it in metal so it survives a housefire because reasons.
Finally, send any crypto from the wallet we're pretending we've lost the seed to in Mycelium to your new Ledger wallet. You can then follow these instructions to use Mycelium with your Ledger or other hardware wallet.
The basic principles involved in these exercises can be generally applied to any wallet. Most people probably wont actually spend an evening going through all this, and although I hope they do even if they don't hopefully after reading this there's a better awareness of how to manage holding your private keys and less fear when doing so.
submitted by FortuitousIdiom to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Mycelium announces Entropy project on Indiegogo

Today, Mycelium has announced the launch of an Indiegogo project for its Mycelium Entropy device. Mycelium Entropy is the newest addition to the Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet ecosystem, first announced at the Bitcoin2014 Conference in Amsterdam, and demonstrated at the Central Europe Bitcoin Expo in Vienna, as well as the recent Bitcoin in the Beltway conference in Washington DC. The project fundraiser was initially delayed when Kickstarter decided to deny it on the grounds that "Kickstarter's guidelines do not allow for offering money processing services." Attempts to explain that a hardware random number generator is not in any way a "money processing service" has failed, but the Mycelium team was not deterred, and we found a new place to host the fundraiser.
Mycelium Entropy is a small, simple USB device that is designed specifically to generate paper wallets. All you do is plug it into a printer's USB port, and the device uses specialized hardware to create a random number with 256-bits of entropy. It then uses that number to generate a paper wallet with public and private keys, which your printer sees as a JPG photo that it can print directly from the device. This is currently the most secure way to create paper wallets, since the keys are never exposed to the web, use true high level entropy, and only exist on paper. For extra security, Mycelium Entropy can also create M-of-N split keys, where the private key is split up in such a way that you need two out of three parts to spend from an address. In this way, if one of your paper backups is lost or stolen, the thief still can't steal your coins, and you can still access them using the remaining 2 paper backups. Since the Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet has full support for spending from paper wallets, using Mycelium Entropy in combination with the Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet can be a very safe and easy way to store and protect your savings. Think of it as being able to create your own bank deposit certificates that you can keep in a safe, while keeping only a bit of spending cash on your Android wallet. With this combination, the idea of "Be Your Own Bank" comes much closer to reality, and becomes much easier as well.
At this stage, the devices are fully functional, and need just a few minor software tweaks, such as fixing issues of incompatibility between US and European sized paper standards causing the headings on the paper wallet image to be cut off. Mostly minor things that will be resolved by the time we are ready to launch. Although the device hardware is open source, we need to raise money to be able to order them in sufficient enough quantities to make them cheaper for everyone, since mass production is much cheaper than ordering them one at a time. Also, about $1,500 of the money raised will go towards testing and compliance for these types of devices, like CE marks, FCC part 15 approvals, etc. While the devices are being developed, we will spend time testing printers and putting together a list of recommended printers to use with these, just to make sure that yours can handle this, or if it can't, to help you find the cheapest (and most secure) option you can get.
You can read many more details, and see examples, on our Indiegogo page.
submitted by Rassah to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Electrum Wallet Issue (Lost Funds)

Hey guys. I'm using a combination of myceliumgear as well as electrum 3.2.3 to automate bitcoin payments on my website. I checked my site and all api keys/xpub keys remained the same. It's just as if my specific electrum wallet stopped adding the addresses myceliumgear was generating as well as updating funds.
This all stopped here: http://prntscr.com/md2qoz
Could anyone help me out with troubleshooting this? I notice my mycelium xpub key is the same as the one in my electrum wallet, so theoretically, it should be adding the addresses, but it's not and I'm at a loss of $600+ over the last 2 days.
Would appreciate any and all help.
Things I have tried: Choosing a different server and synchronising, loading up a different device entirely and importing using my seed.
submitted by skrzzy to Electrum [link] [comments]

A question about wallets...

I am doing some investigations into wallets. As far as I can see there are three types
All of these have their pros and cons. I am discounting the software wallets, although extremely convenient, the chances of malware getting involved at any stage of the process is just not acceptable.
So that leaves hardware or paper. Because I am only really interested in Bitcoin (I have other coins, but for trading purposes only they are stored on exchanges, not in wallets) I won't need a device that is capable of storing and managing multiple currencies.
So the serious potential cons I can see from these are potential loss of assets due to theft and loss or accidental damage, which should be able to be mitigated in some way?
As I understand it the basis of your bitcoin storage are a combination of public key (address) and private key?
A public key (address) comprising a long string starting 1 - 14YrmebtMY4vrEePN3rMbVxhFG14Xac4KG and an even longer string KxbZhEZtyDowb69PpkwyBS6oGYGVaE3MhR9UX5mtbuea62JqGgex which is the private key (don't worry, no bitcoins there).
I think I get that you need only the public key (address) to receive bitcoins (have someone else send them to you with their private key)
However, to send bitcoins to another public key (address), you also need the private key which corresponds to the public key where the bitcoins are currently, yes?
So to prevent your bitcoins being stolen, you don't ever disclose your private key, and that includes letting it anywhere near an internet connected computer in case it's compromised by malware that can detect private keys being typed or stored.
So I can boot a bare laptop with a USB linux image and generate the public/private key pair for my own use and print them off later, but I'd need to use my private key at some stage if I ever wanted to send/spend the bitcoins afterwards - so at some point the private key needs to go on the computer to sign the transaction?
Also, looking at keeping your printed private key safe and not looking obviously like a private key, what methods generally used for that? Or do you print a copy and hide it inside a really boring looking book on your bookshelf - something like that?
submitted by mrredditor79 to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Sweeping BTC,BCH,BTG from old BIP38 paper wallets into Ledger Nano S

My notes on "sweeping" BTC, BCH, and BTG from very old BIP38 protected paper wallets into Ledger Nano S:
Details:
BTC in wallet stored since 2015, so it has the BCH (Bitcoin Cash) and BTG (Bitcoin Gold) forked coins.
BTC coins in paper wallets protected with BIP38.
Old-fashioned paper wallets: Single address (Not HD). Not SegWit. Not multisig.
Using a brand new Ledger Nano S. Bitcoin wallet in "Legacy mode. Bitcoin Cash wallet in "Split" mode. Bitcoin Gold wallet in "Legacy" mode. (I just wanted to avoid any complications from SegWit. It may have been perfectly safe to use it, but I did not want to risk it potentially complicating things.)
I wanted to move these coins to my Ledger Nano S.
  1. Moving the BTC:
Use the Mycelium (Android) "Cold Storage Spending" feature to move the BTC to Ledger. This part was painless. Wait 6 confirmations before going to next step.
  1. Moving the BCH:
Use the Coinomi (Android) app's "BitcoinCash" wallet to sweep my paper wallet's BCH.
After confirmation, I then wanted to send the Bitcoin Cash from Coinomi's wallet to the Ledger. This is where I encountered my first problem. When I would QR scan the receive address from the Ledger Chrome app, Coinomi would think I was trying to send to a BTC address instead of BCH and tried to do digital currency conversion which resulted in error messages about going over the maximum limit, etc.
I finally figured out it wasn't recognizing the Bitcoin Cash address being displayed in the Chrome app as a Bitcoin Cash address.
To work-around this, I had to use another Android app, QR scanner, to read the QR code from Ledger, copy the result to the clipboard (it was "bitcoin:1XXXXX"), modify the text to "bitcoincash:1XXXXX") and then paste the modified text into the Coinomi send-to address. Always double check every character of the address to prevent errors from typos (dropping characters, etc.) or clipboard interception malware.
  1. Moving the BTG:
The Bitcoin Gold sweep proved even more challenging. Switch to the "BitcoinGold" wallet in Coinomi.
Coinomi could not sweep the wallet using the QR scan of the BIP38 private key like it did for Bitcoin Cash, it just gives a "The private key type does not match the destination account type" error message.
Instead, from my laptop, I had to go to bitaddress.org, click on "Wallet Details", DISCONNECT YOUR MACHINE FROM THE INTERNET, and then paste the BIP38 private key into the "Enter Private Key" field. Click "View Details", and it will then ask you to type in your BIP38 secret passphrase. Do that and a bunch of private key WIF format QR codes will appear.
The Coinomi support page says to use sweep using the "Private WID Compressed key... starts with a 'K' or 'L' code", but this did not work for me (would only show me an "The address has no funds" error message). Instead, I had to sweep using the "Private Key WIF" starting with a '5' for it to work.
The BTG sweep instructions are generally from: https://coinomi.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/29000017747-i-can-t-sweep-my-btg-private-key except that I modified step #6 (using the '5' WIF key, not the 'K'/'L' WIF key).
Once the sweep starts in the Coinomi app on Android, CLOSE THE bitaddress.org BROWSER WINDOW in your laptop's web browser, and then re-connect to the Internet.
After you get some confirmations, then you can send directly to the BTG address in the Ledger wallet.
Be safe:
For all the wallets you swept, don't ever use those private keys or BIP38 pass phrases again. After entering the keys and passphrases in multiple places for this task to split everything up, it's possible you may have accidentally leaked the keys somewhere, so just assume the keys are burnt from now on.
Hopefully this helps people. It took me all day trying different things until I finally found a combination of steps that worked. I guess there aren't many people with BTC from years ago still on BIP38 cold storage wallets.
submitted by bjguill to ledgerwallet [link] [comments]

'What's wrong with my current cold storage method?' - an examination of potential weaknesses in the most common cold storage methods

Today we are going to discuss cold storage and some specific problems with cold storage. While this applies directly to the Secret Key portion of a key-pair; it also applies to the seed used to back up HD wallets and hardware wallets.
The best way to keep you seed/secret key safe is to have multiple copies in multiple locations perhaps with multiple formats and even better if the keys are split. However not everyone has access to multiple locations, or access to land long term, or more than one place to store their things. This is an examination of faults with individual methods; and not a comprehensive plan, obviously.
Not to say everything is all bad but there are many potential weakness out there, and some in the Bitcoin and crypto community like to know the edge cases of things.
I will also highlight some of the aspects of the Keyois Capsule which is a 'physical bitcoin'.
A physical Bitcoin is a cryptographic key pair, a physical key printed and affixed to what has always been before a coin. The first physical bitcoin coin was the Casascius coin, since then the world of physical bitcoin coins has blossomed as a fun part of the Bitcoin world.
We will focus on mediums relating to cold storage and not ones designed for more everyday use, but this applies to the seed you save to keep your everyday spending wallets safe and backed up.
We will assume you generated your keys securely and that you already have them on some medium. We will also have to ignore endpoint physical security because they can all be carried away the same. Remember your cell phone /hardware wallet/ computer client are only as good as where you put the backup seed phrase, which can be thought of as data much like the SK discussed below.
Written on a piece of paper
Printed on a piece of paper
On laminated paper
Engraved / etched/ ablated/ stamped on a piece of metal
Stored digitally on a computer
Stored digitally on CD, floppy disk, laserdisc, or mini-disc
Stored digitally on a flash drive
Backups are essential for digital data Computer code for performing operations can be corrupted in transfer or in operation. Special systems exist and procedures help data to last longer. For ideas, see this archive.gov page Remember to store in multiple locations. You can lose everything in single structure
A physical bitcoin coin
**What can solve most of these problems? A combination of good backup procedures and encryption. **
If you have permeant access to more than one location (people who live in big cities, without family or cars have a hard time with this) or have people you trust with your money (don't) then look into using some form of Multi-signature option.
The Keyois Capsule is a crypto piggy bank; it can be funded from the outside but you to break it open to get them out. You give me a BIP38 encrypted key pair (well the address not the public key) and I engrave it in this tamper evident and time resistant package. You still have to hold on to the pass phrase that allows you to decrypt it; that is however the same problem as all methods with BIP38 encryption. How to store this without having to trust anyone but still being assured of it's security?
  • Engraving, embossing, or stamping on a sheet of metal is one option; however the metals that are easiest to stamp are ones that melt in a house fire. They could be put in a glass jar that's filled with aerogel and buried. These is the best readily available option for most people but it really can be tedious. - This puts you back at anyone who can see it can steal it so dip in plastic dip, wrap in duct tape, bake in clay, encase in concrete, whatever just don't leave unencrypted keys visible!
  • The cryptosteel is another ready-made option
  • Have the words etched onto glass at home with off the shelf products; but be carful of this idea because the glass can shatter from impact and heat or even sudden temperature changes
  • Anodize the words yourself on a pieces of metal, there used to be a service to help use your home printer to print the words with some chemicals you can buy
  • Bake them in clay, then encase that in epoxy resin so it can't shatter. then paint the outside, in the future you can solvent the paint off and see the written seed
  • Use a combination of techniques to split the seed so that it is safe(because split and separated) and redundant (because backed up).
The most cost effective way for a 'normal' person (without their own land, without more than one location, and who cannot trust anyone else with their funds) to keep their backup seed/ secret key safe from damage from the elements would probably to buy a stamping kit and hammer and some stainless steel sheet or bar, Aluminium can be okay if you have the right alloy but better safe than sorry.
submitted by ProfBitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

'What is wrong with my current cold storage method' - an examination of potential weaknesses in the most common cold storage methods

Today we are going to discuss cold storage and some specific problems with cold storage. While this applies directly to the Secret Key portion of a key-pair; it also applies to the seed used to back up HD wallets and hardware wallets.
Not to say everything is all bad but there are many potential weakness out there, and some in the Bitcoin and crypto community like to know the edge cases of things.
I will also highlight some of the aspects of the Keyois Capsule which is a 'physical bitcoin'.
A physical Bitcoin is a cryptographic key pair, a physical key printed and affixed to what has always been before a coin. The first physical bitcoin coin was the Casascius coin, since then the world of physical bitcoin coins has blossomed as a fun part of the Bitcoin world.
We will focus on mediums relating to cold storage and not ones designed for more everyday use, but this applies to the seed you save to keep your everyday spending wallets safe and backed up.
We will assume you generated your keys securely and that you already have them on some medium. We will also have to ignore endpoint physical security because they can all be carried away the same. Remember your cell phone /hardware wallet/ computer client are only as good as where you put the backup seed phrase, which can be thought of as data much like the SK discussed below.
Written on a piece of paper
Printed on a piece of paper
On laminated paper
Engraved / etched/ ablated/ stamped on a piece of metal
Stored digitally on a computer
Stored digitally on CD, floppy disk, laserdisc, or mini-disc
Stored digitally on a flash drive
Backups are essential for digital data Computer code for performing operations can be corrupted in transfer or in operation. Special systems exist and procedures help data to last longer. For ideas, see this archive.gov page Remember to store in multiple locations. You can lose everything in single structure
A physical bitcoin coin
What can solve most of these problems? A combination of good backup procedures and encryption.
If you have permeant access to more than one location (people who live in big cities, without family or cars have a hard time with this) or have people you trust with your money (don't) then look into using some form of Multi-signature option.
The Keyois Capsule is a crypto piggy bank; it can be funded from the outside but you to break it open to get them out. You give me a BIP38 encrypted key pair (well the address not the public key) and I engrave it in this tamper evident and time resistant package. You still have to hold on to the pass phrase that allows you to decrypt it; that is however the same problem as all methods with BIP38 encryption. How to store this without having to trust anyone but still being assured of it's security?
  • Engraving, embossing, or stamping on a sheet of metal is one option; however the metals that are easiest to stamp are ones that melt in a house fire. They could be put in a glass jar that's filled with aerogel and buried. These is the best readily available option for most people but it really can be tedious.
  • The cryptosteel is another ready-made option
  • Have the words etched onto glass at home with off the shelf products; but be carful of this idea because the glass can shatter from impact and heat or even sudden temperature changes
  • Anodize the words yourself on a pieces of metal, there used to be a service to help use your home printer to print the words with some chemicals you can buy
  • Bake them in clay, then encase that in epoxy resin so it can't shatter. then paint the outside, in the future you can solvent the paint off and see the written seed
  • Use a combination of techniques to split the seed so that it is safe(because split and separated) and redundant (because backed up).
Characters stamped on Aluminium is probably the most cost effective way to keep a secret key or seed safe from fire and rot.
submitted by ProfBitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2018-04-20 to 2018-05-20 06:58 PDT

Period: 29.85 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 53623
Rate (per day) 33.50 1780.26
Unique Redditors 466 5134
Combined Score 118969 219877

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 7839 points, 57 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. If all the 32MB blocks were permanently 100% full, this $400 hard drive could store the blockchain for the next 7 years. (373 points, 352 comments)
    2. The people behind Bitcoin Cash are the ones who created Bitcoin's network effect in the first place. (357 points, 123 comments)
    3. Bitcoin subscribers are now calling for people to report Bitcoin.com to the Internet Crime Complaint Center of the FBI. It's sad that BTC supporters all seem to be statists who yell about hodling their muh store of value all day. (348 points, 288 comments)
    4. I have more emails saved on my computer than the entire BTC or BCH block chains. (319 points, 131 comments)
    5. Bitcoin.com is now sponsoring pro female MMA athletes. (293 points, 121 comments)
    6. CoinGeek will support Bitcoin.com in lawsuit over the real Bitcoin - Coingeek (273 points, 354 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash is now on iOS in the world’s most popular crypto wallet. #winning (257 points, 131 comments)
    8. "The vast majority of mining hash power was controlled by people who were psychologically incapable of disobedience to perceived authority." -Mike Hearn (250 points, 194 comments)
    9. "BTC True Believers" Are Boycotting the First National Talk Radio Show that ever Discussed Bitcoin because they accept BCH payments. (245 points, 116 comments)
    10. All I keep hearing is that Bitcoin Cash is an infested cesspool of lawless, leaderless, disrespectful, narcissistic, greedy, scammy, capitalistic anarchists that will never create digital money! I swear I’m getting dejavu! (225 points, 46 comments)
  2. 3965 points, 19 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. (614 points, 114 comments)
    2. Purse.io is paying its employees in Bitcoin Cash. (447 points, 63 comments)
    3. Shoutout to Kraken for standing up to NY Attorney General. If Schneiderman wants transparency and accountability he should be looking into auditing the fed. (406 points, 28 comments)
    4. Bitcoin is rat poison. The bankers are the rats. (404 points, 56 comments)
    5. Forbes Author Frances Coppola takes blockstream to task. (364 points, 35 comments)
    6. Purse CEO Andrew Lee confirms they are paying employees in BCH and native BCH integration update will be coming soon! (343 points, 43 comments)
    7. PSA: So called 'low-fee' cryptocurrency Litecoin has transaction fees 20x higher than Bitcoin Cash (264 points, 80 comments)
    8. After today's BCH Upgrade, longer posts are now enabled on memo.cash! (250 points, 31 comments)
    9. Jeffrey Tucker is promoting bitcoin.com at Atlanta Bitcoin Embassy. (195 points, 57 comments)
    10. Anti-Bitcoiners, life comes at you fast! (109 points, 26 comments)
  3. 3846 points, 30 submissions: Kain_niaK
    1. Bitcoin Cash has not only removed the cap on transactions but also the cap on development. Something new pops up every time I blink. (368 points, 162 comments)
    2. I am getting flashbacks from when I tried to close my Bank of America account ... (353 points, 155 comments)
    3. Fucking /bitcoin assholes reported my twitter account and now I need to verify with a phone number before I can continue with twitter. (325 points, 218 comments)
    4. Paul Wasensteiner: When is @Twitter going to fix the abuse of the report button by @bitcoincoreorg supporters? Why are supporters of a supposedly censorship-resistant money using censorship at every opportunity? (295 points, 106 comments)
    5. We should pirate the entire piratebay.org website and all it's functionality directly on to the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. The piratebay.org is just magnet links and comments. Then they will say bcash stole our business ... (232 points, 439 comments)
    6. Fees higher than a dollar cent or waiting times longer than a couple of seconds defeat the entire purpose of why Bitcoin was invented. (218 points, 164 comments)
    7. moneybutton.com is a configurable client-side Bitcoin Cash (BCH) wallet in an iframe. When the user makes a payment, a webhook URL is called allowing your app to respond to the payment, such as displaying content behind a pay wall. (189 points, 37 comments)
    8. We proudly present BCHpizza.org! Now the community can create city bounties for pizza shops to incentivize them to accept Bitcoin Cash. First pizza shop in a city to do so gets the bounty! (177 points, 117 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash can turn in to the biggest non violent protest against the establishment ever : "We simply stop using their money." Which is a great way of getting edgy teenagers to join us. There is an almost infinite supply of edgy teenagers in the world. (156 points, 42 comments)
    10. We need testers for the Cash Shuffle plugin. (121 points, 17 comments)
  4. 3666 points, 28 submissions: Windowly
    1. "Billion-dollar corporations take note: Bitcoin Cash is open for business! Just try to fill up our blocks, I dare you. There will be no "Fidelity Effect" with BCH. Unlike BTC, we want you to use the Blockchain. BCH never really hits a scale ceiling."~Dr. Peter Rizun (415 points, 177 comments)
    2. "In a discussion group of BCH, lots of investors concerned about the address confusing problem. BCH community should push every software of ecosystem to upgrade to Cashaddr ASAP."~Jihan Wu (366 points, 215 comments)
    3. "Maybe the best way to bring economic freedom to the world is to make an uncensorable Twitter."~Ryan X. Charles (300 points, 114 comments)
    4. Newbie tip! Do yourself a favor, get a Protonmail email account and switch all your crypto exchanges to that email. No reason Google/Gmail need to have your entire crypto history at their fingertips. (299 points, 133 comments)
    5. "On the 15th of May, I'll be popping the champagne, not to celebrate high fees, but to celebrate continued low fees, privacy enablements, smart contract capabilities, and PayPal level throughput capability."~Eli Afram (233 points, 46 comments)
    6. 24% of the trading on GDAX in the last 24 hours was for Bitcoin Cash (BCH)! 😊💃 (185 points, 16 comments)
    7. Yeah!! "We are pleased to announce that the new Bitcoin Cash address format has been implemented on QuadrigaCX. This will help our users to easily distinguish Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash addresses when funding/withdrawing their account. The BCH legacy addresses will still be supported." (165 points, 8 comments)
    8. ANNOUNCE: Coinbase has blocked the official @WikiLeaks shop from its platform without notice or explanation. You can continue to donate #Bitcoin to WikiLeaks at https://WikiLeaks.org/donate . (164 points, 55 comments)
    9. There is a Bitcoin Unlimited election today. (BU is one of the 6+ development teams that develop clients for Bitcoin Cash (BCH). BU has a unique governance system where developers are not king. . instead members vote on proposals. If you are a member, please vote! (161 points, 29 comments)
    10. Bitpay Adds Bitcoin Cash Support to Checkout Point-of-Sale App - Bitcoin News (151 points, 22 comments)
  5. 2565 points, 15 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit (575 points, 335 comments)
    2. Frances Coppola on Twitter: “Congratulations, Blockstream, you have just reinvented the interbank lending market.” (411 points, 139 comments)
    3. Once again Core supporters threaten with lawsuits and government intervention to try to get their way. This is just pathetic and not the foundations of what Bitcoin was built on. These are not bitcoiners. (299 points, 355 comments)
    4. Get ready - Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15th! (198 points, 132 comments)
    5. CobraBitcoin: "Lightning is cool, but nobody should be recommending it to actual merchants for at least the next few years. Merchants like Steam already got hurt by adopting Bitcoin and regretting it later. Lightning needs time to mature and prove itself. Mad hype to rush adoption will harm it." (157 points, 58 comments)
    6. Blockchain on Twitter: “What's that you see? It's all your BCH that now appears in your #ios wallet. Take control of your financial future and #beyourownbank today.” (138 points, 20 comments)
    7. We are living in the digital age of information, which is why censorship has become such an important issue [...] That’s why I’m excited about decentralized social networks built on top of Bitcoin Cash like @BlockPressApp & @memobch. They are new so need work, but the path is being paved. (131 points, 31 comments)
    8. BlockPress published its protocol (123 points, 22 comments)
    9. We have a new alternative public mod logs (96 points, 35 comments)
    10. If Bitcoin Core (BTC) is no longer usable by many people in the world due to being out priced (high tx fees), is it still “borderless”? I’d argue that it’s no longer borderless if people all over the world are excluded from the network. (95 points, 34 comments)
  6. 2030 points, 11 submissions: tralxz
    1. Breaking News: Winklevoss Brothers Bitcoin Exchange Adds Bitcoin Cash support! (508 points, 115 comments)
    2. Jihan Wu was asked "Why are the miners still supporting Bitcoin Core? Is it just a short term profitability play?", he answered: "Yes, exactly." (279 points, 215 comments)
    3. Cobra:"That feeling when Blockstream, [...] release Liquid, a completely centralized sidechain run only by trusted nodes and designed for banks, financial institutions and exchanges." (245 points, 145 comments)
    4. LibreOffice Foundation accepts Bitcoin Cash donations. (191 points, 11 comments)
    5. Breaking News! Vin Armani: "Major mining pools have agreed to establish a treasury and start funding $BCH development from their block rewards. HUGE!!!" (186 points, 80 comments)
    6. CNBC's Fast Money: Ran NeuNer says he would HODL Bitcoin Cash and sell Bitcoin Core. (172 points, 59 comments)
    7. Jihan Wu on Bloomberg predicting Bitcoin Cash at $100,000 USD in 5 years. (172 points, 65 comments)
    8. Let's start the Bitcoin Cash upgrade party. New era for BCH is coming May 15. Privacy tools + smart contracts + PayPal capacity handling. Exciting times ahead! (106 points, 37 comments)
    9. Coindesk: "Florida Tax Collector to Accept Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash Payments" (60 points, 8 comments)
    10. Adam B.: "Bitcoin is not a democracy". The authoritarian moves by Core makes perfect sense now. (59 points, 46 comments)
  7. 1485 points, 12 submissions: jonald_fyookball
    1. BTCers fundraise for frivolous lawsuit. BCH fundraises to feed Venezuelans. (233 points, 58 comments)
    2. bitcoin admits: best way to use Lightning Network: don't use it. (189 points, 286 comments)
    3. Electron Cash 3.2 is available. Includes new op-codes and fixes for Ledger hardware wallet (180 points, 50 comments)
    4. If you have to call it bcash you've already lost the argument (164 points, 257 comments)
    5. Cash Shuffle plugin 0.2 - Cash Shuffle development continues (131 points, 37 comments)
    6. Claims that BCH is a "centralized coin" are exaggerations at best. (114 points, 83 comments)
    7. (shitpost) philosoraptor meme: if honeybadger don't care... (106 points, 22 comments)
    8. BCH being a minority chain may be a blessing in disguise (97 points, 83 comments)
    9. Another reason to be bullish on BCH (92 points, 18 comments)
    10. BCHpizza already has 4 bounties posted. It's also no longer needed to sign a message to post a bounty. (89 points, 21 comments)
  8. 1393 points, 8 submissions: rdar1999
    1. Naomi Brockwell on Twitter: "[I] won’t succumb to censorship through intimidation." (332 points, 190 comments)
    2. Consensus 2018 sucked hard. Superficial talks, ridiculous ticket price, overcrowded venue. (233 points, 78 comments)
    3. ==> Becash or Begone: reclaiming the "bcash" trolling (213 points, 107 comments)
    4. See in this twitter thread Luke Jr actually arguing that PayPal is cheaper than BCH!! Is this guy in full delirium? Or just spouts misinformation on purpose? (172 points, 227 comments)
    5. ///\ BTC-BCH persists as the most popular trade on ShapeShift.io /// (171 points, 20 comments)
    6. The retard tribalism is so real. SBI japan's financial giant says they will launch a platform with BCH as settlement coin (due to BTC being bad) and XRP as remittances. I provide the link and cryptocurrency shills deny plain literally declared fact. (124 points, 50 comments)
    7. Chris DeRose on Twitter: "So if Roger ver wins the class action lawsuit, I assume that Bitcoin cash can then rightfully sue Bitcoin core proponents for fraud?" (92 points, 61 comments)
    8. Upgrade completed at height 530356! (56 points, 2 comments)
  9. 1377 points, 12 submissions: Egon_1
    1. Genesis Mining:"We are more than happy to announce that Bitcoin Cash is now available as a Native Mining option for all Bitcoin (Sha256) contracts!" (287 points, 22 comments)
    2. Jihan Wu on BCH Lighthouse:”This project was abandoned on BTC Blockchain long time ago, it is very excited to see it is alive again on BCH Blockchain. It can be very huge.” (278 points, 50 comments)
    3. Yahoo Finance: "Bitcoin Goes Lateral as Bitcoin Cash Steals the Show… AGAIN" (189 points, 46 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin Cash is actually more interesting ..." (119 points, 15 comments)
    5. Jeff Garzik:"Just got an earful from a Chicago cabbie, on $LTC He was very grumpy at @SatoshiLite selling, saying it indicated a lack of founder's confidence in his own creation. #StreetCrypto" (100 points, 8 comments)
    6. “Why don't we start saying: "Bitcoin is Cash" It's much harder to refute than "Bitcoin Cash IS Bitcoin"“ (75 points, 49 comments)
    7. "Because Bitcoin Cash is effectively Bitcoin ✌️ (72 points, 22 comments)
    8. Bye Bye P2P Electronic Cash ... (68 points, 88 comments)
    9. Bitcoin.com Wallet needs more useful services integrated... beyond Shapeshift (59 points, 24 comments)
    10. BCH keeps bitcoins minions busy (48 points, 28 comments)
  10. 1291 points, 9 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. Vitalik Buterin says what we've all been saying - CoinDesk is scammy and complicit bad actor in the cryptocurrency world and should be shunned (510 points, 61 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Wallet Mycelium Begins Rolling Out Bitcoin Cash BCH Support (163 points, 39 comments)
    3. Cheddr is a Bitcoin Cash Point Of Sale system that runs in most modern browsers - no server infrastructure required (137 points, 31 comments)
    4. Leaked Telegram chat shows bitcoin.com "fraud" lawsuit was abandoned due to lack of support 😂😂😂 (135 points, 32 comments)
    5. Toshi to expand beyond Ethereum - will add Bitcoin Cash (91 points, 7 comments)
    6. Litecoin transaction fees 20 times higher than Bitcoin Cash (85 points, 44 comments)
    7. DAMN BCH! (68 points, 25 comments)
    8. In honor of the Bitcoin Cash successful upgrade and now we have the true lightning network. I present to you lightningnetwork.cash! (58 points, 22 comments)
    9. Bcore shills are crying right now 😭😭😂😂 (44 points, 10 comments)
  11. 1202 points, 9 submissions: SharkLaserrrrr
    1. Memo is now open source! (361 points, 160 comments)
    2. Based on @BitcoinCashFund report, preliminary calculation: Total spent: $153,138.49 Total spent on Salaries and Travel: $101,996.79 ~66% of donations is spent on themselves, charities/non-profits (official registered ones) limit themselves to less than 10% (161 points, 181 comments)
    3. [PREVIEW] Looks like Lighthouse powered by Bitcoin Cash is coming together nicely thanks to the hard work of an anonymous developer. I wonder how Mike Hearn feels about his project being resurrected. (159 points, 24 comments)
    4. We heard you want a Bitcoin Cash exclusive wallet that uses ‘bits’ and enables you to buy anything online and pay with Bitcoin Cash so we are building one #cashpay #CryptonizeYourPurchases (137 points, 77 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin experience. If you have any doubts, go buy something on cryptonize.it, then buy something off a Lightning store and compare what you had to go through to pay for your order. (103 points, 51 comments)
    6. As of today, cryptonize.it shows prices in Bitcoin Cash next to fiat! (81 points, 9 comments)
    7. Incompatible protocols gave us the ’90s web which was not a pretty sight. Let’s not repeat the same mistakes when building censorship resisted social media powered by Bitcoin Cash. Support @MemoBCH protocol. (72 points, 57 comments)
    8. To help developers raise funds, cryptonize.it is sponsoring a Lighthouse server and website so useful projects can be funded by the community directly. (66 points, 7 comments)
    9. $25,- Amazon gift cards back in store, 0-conf. instant delivery, the real bitcoin experience (62 points, 18 comments)
  12. 1189 points, 1 submission: ocist1121
    1. No spend (1189 points, 87 comments)
  13. 1148 points, 6 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Three years ago today, Mike Hearn published an article explaining exactly what would happen when the 1MB blocksize limit was hit. He was right on all counts. (473 points, 173 comments)
    2. An easy way to visualize the August 1st Hard Fork. Neither of the two branches resulting from a fork can be called "the original road," but only one branch continues towards the same destination. (163 points, 140 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core fanatics are trying to organize a lawsuit against Bitcoin.com for using the term "Bitcoin (BCH)", while they run around all day labelling it "Bcash" (157 points, 167 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin Cash won't "fork" in May. Instead, Bitcoin Cash will just upgrade." (123 points, 53 comments)
    5. Just launched: Satoshi Pulse, by Bitcoin.com (121 points, 44 comments)
    6. Ryan Charles delivers an epic rant about Lightning Network problems (111 points, 19 comments)
  14. 1085 points, 10 submissions: unitedstatian
    1. Reminder: Blockstream plans to make money from the proprietary solutions it sells, which is why it moved away from the free permissionless blockchain to an abstracted layer on top which requires 3rd party solutions to be cost effective for most users. (220 points, 146 comments)
    2. It seems there's been a massive propaganda campaign to brainwash people into thinking hardforks are bad. (180 points, 56 comments)
    3. BCH could really be missing the new big use case. Gamers would love to have real ownership of game items. The first game which will integrate a digital coin and make it popular will be groundbreaking. (141 points, 76 comments)
    4. The guy had 350 bucks received via Lightning Network but he can't even close the channels to actually withdraw the bitcoins. (139 points, 188 comments)
    5. What gives Core the right to change the model so drastically and still keep the brand name? (119 points, 117 comments)
    6. One of the most ignorant - even anti-crypto - argument I hear around is that BCH is a currency controlled by Chinese miners. (88 points, 74 comments)
    7. The first megabytes are far more crucial than the 100th. Not every MB was born equal and by giving up on adoption for years Core may have given up on adoption forever. (69 points, 20 comments)
    8. In light of the recent ERC-20 bug I think this is a good time to remember these wise words (54 points, 25 comments)
    9. If BCH had decent privacy features it'd gain so much more market share. It's hard to compete with privacy-always-on coins such as XMR but many more coins offer moderate privacy and would be easy to beat. (42 points, 31 comments)
    10. If Memo taught me one thing it's the more uses around the coin the better - can BCH be adopted to help fight counterfeiting? (33 points, 4 comments)
  15. 1055 points, 5 submissions: ForkiusMaximus
    1. MortuusBestia hits on a pitch-perfect way of looking at BCH's value proposition in epic comment on /BitcoinMarkets (604 points, 109 comments)
    2. I am excited that BCH is being irrationally criticized, because it reminds me of 2011 and 2012 when Bitcoin was being irrationally criticized. Any of 2013, when the price rose 100x. (183 points, 82 comments)
    3. Japanese tweeter makes a good point about BTC: "You don't call it an asset if it crumbles away every time you go to use it. You call it a consumable." (144 points, 21 comments)
    4. Jimmy Nguyen: Bitcoin Cash can function for higher level technical programming (80 points, 3 comments)
    5. How NOT to tell which is "the real Bitcoin" (44 points, 15 comments)
  16. 1032 points, 6 submissions: theantnest
    1. Let's start a class action lawsuit against Canada for calling their currency the dollar. I accidentally bought CAD when I wanted USD, and didn't know I could just exchange it again. (511 points, 243 comments)
    2. BTC noobs conned into being concerned about node count to distract them from the real centralization problem: (137 points, 172 comments)
    3. Any real scientist interested in Bitcoin should be happy Bitcoin Cash exists. (110 points, 40 comments)
    4. Blockstream shill admits to exaggerating and slandering Roger purely because he doesn't support BTC. (103 points, 49 comments)
    5. Cognitive Dissonance: It's totally fine to call BCH 'bcash', but it's fraudulent to call it Bitcoin? (93 points, 51 comments)
    6. Be Cash! (78 points, 45 comments)
  17. 1029 points, 7 submissions: zhell_
    1. MEMO NOW SUPPORTS REPLIES, join the Party now ! (208 points, 50 comments)
    2. memo.cash has been generating 2000 tx/day since its start, which is near 10% of all transactions on the BCH network. (201 points, 73 comments)
    3. "Money comes from being the most tradable of all commodities" Austrian Economics (189 points, 104 comments)
    4. Fiat is crashing: Inflation in the US averages at 10%/year in the past 5 years when measured as the price of the top 500 items on which Americans spend their after-tax dollars. (183 points, 49 comments)
    5. Memo.cash breaks a record with 3000 on-chain actions in the last 24h after implementing replies (143 points, 25 comments)
    6. with 2k tx/day, memo.cash is only using ~0.09% of 8MB blocks capacity currently on the BCH network (that would be 0.02% of 32MB blocks) (69 points, 3 comments)
    7. Help! I bought what I thought was Bitcoin and it is now gone! /s (36 points, 8 comments)
  18. 1020 points, 4 submissions: Anenome5
    1. Let's End the War and focus on the TRUE ENEMY (719 points, 349 comments)
    2. Satoshi's original whitepaper talks about "Reclaiming Disk Space" by pruning transactions, what's being done on this front? Core-trolls say we don't need to store forever that you bought a coffee, and that's true, and Satoshi also proposed how to fix that long ago. (200 points, 166 comments)
    3. Core'er says $50 fees "a wtf moment for everyone" but doubts it will ever happen again. Seems they're in for a surprise, BTC is still extremely vulnerable to transaction-fee price-inflation due to low capacity. BTC transaction fees currently 19+ times higher than BCH. (65 points, 30 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Cash, the early years... [OC] (36 points, 16 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (3904 points, 368 comments)
  2. Kain_niaK (3058 points, 684 comments)
  3. bambarasta (2674 points, 360 comments)
  4. H0dl (2352 points, 464 comments)
  5. rdar1999 (2352 points, 404 comments)
  6. BitttBurger (2301 points, 313 comments)
  7. Adrian-X (2118 points, 506 comments)
  8. MemoryDealers (2084 points, 102 comments)
  9. trolldetectr (2073 points, 502 comments)
  10. LexGrom (2055 points, 709 comments)
  11. Ant-n (1834 points, 334 comments)
  12. LovelyDay (1820 points, 468 comments)
  13. jimbtc (1734 points, 212 comments)
  14. fruitsofknowledge (1618 points, 469 comments)
  15. ForkiusMaximus (1612 points, 211 comments)
  16. unstoppable-cash (1537 points, 201 comments)
  17. unitedstatian (1485 points, 388 comments)
  18. jonald_fyookball (1481 points, 142 comments)
  19. Bitcoinopoly (1471 points, 175 comments)
  20. BeijingBitcoins (1430 points, 100 comments)
  21. KoKansei (1330 points, 84 comments)
  22. MobTwo (1309 points, 93 comments)
  23. btcnewsupdates (1263 points, 153 comments)
  24. lubokkanev (1252 points, 298 comments)
  25. BitcoinXio (1251 points, 76 comments)
  26. taipalag (1248 points, 250 comments)
  27. mrtest001 (1075 points, 271 comments)
  28. LuxuriousThrowAway (1072 points, 163 comments)
  29. MarchewkaCzerwona (1046 points, 119 comments)
  30. cbeaks (985 points, 175 comments)
  31. SharkLaserrrrr (976 points, 135 comments)
  32. tippr (974 points, 523 comments)
  33. knight222 (963 points, 132 comments)
  34. PsyRev_ (941 points, 189 comments)
  35. radmege (919 points, 62 comments)
  36. Anenome5 (914 points, 182 comments)
  37. Churn (886 points, 75 comments)
  38. 324JL (855 points, 200 comments)
  39. emergent_reasons (854 points, 143 comments)
  40. TiagoTiagoT (841 points, 320 comments)
  41. bahkins313 (831 points, 121 comments)
  42. silverjustice (825 points, 62 comments)
  43. cryptorebel (812 points, 148 comments)
  44. scotty321 (811 points, 121 comments)
  45. DaSpawn (808 points, 113 comments)
  46. homopit (795 points, 100 comments)
  47. AcerbLogic (786 points, 205 comments)
  48. normal_rc (777 points, 59 comments)
  49. fiah84 (774 points, 136 comments)
  50. Deadbeat1000 (753 points, 61 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. No spend by ocist1121 (1189 points, 87 comments)
  2. 1 For whoever questions the utility of Bitcoin, here's banking summarized accurately by rlibec (783 points, 163 comments)
  3. Let's End the War and focus on the TRUE ENEMY by Anenome5 (719 points, 349 comments)
  4. Am I the only one that doesn't mind Bitcoin Cash being called "Bitcoin Cash" instead of just "Bitcoin" (for now)? by d3on (672 points, 401 comments)
  5. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. by hunk_quark (614 points, 114 comments)
  6. MortuusBestia hits on a pitch-perfect way of looking at BCH's value proposition in epic comment on /BitcoinMarkets by ForkiusMaximus (604 points, 109 comments)
  7. coincall.io labels BCH a "shitcoin" by groovymash (586 points, 329 comments)
  8. Erik Voorhees: “Roger - please stop referencing me to back up your opinion that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. It isn't. Bitcoin is the chain originating from the genesis block with the highest accumulated proof of work. The Bitcoin Cash fork failed to gain majority, thus it is not Bitcoin.” by sumsaph (585 points, 547 comments)
  9. Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate.. by VanquishAudio (581 points, 113 comments)
  10. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit by BitcoinXio (575 points, 335 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 322 points: rdar1999's comment in My dog ate my TREZOR. Check your recovery seeds folks!
  2. 314 points: my_next_account's comment in Erik Voorhees: “Roger - please stop referencing me to back up your opinion that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. It isn't. Bitcoin is the chain originating from the genesis block with the highest accumulated proof of work. The Bitcoin Cash fork failed to gain majority, thus it is not Bitcoin.”
  3. 259 points: everyother's comment in 1 For whoever questions the utility of Bitcoin, here's banking summarized accurately
  4. 225 points: morli's comment in Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate..
  5. 209 points: groovymash's comment in coincall.io labels BCH a "shitcoin"
  6. 206 points: insanityzwolf's comment in Am I the only one that doesn't mind Bitcoin Cash being called "Bitcoin Cash" instead of just "Bitcoin" (for now)?
  7. 183 points: BitttBurger's comment in MoneyTrigz fails to raise more than $3,700 for Bitcoin.com lawsuit. Considers pulling the plug.
  8. 182 points: patrick99e99's comment in I used to think BCH was the bad guy, now I'm beginning to change the way I see it... Convince me that BCH is the real Bitcoin
  9. 175 points: RollieMe's comment in Trying to see both sides of the scaling debate
  10. 156 points: KillerDr3w's comment in My dog ate my TREZOR. Check your recovery seeds folks!
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Mycelium HD Wallet (Android) How to Setup Mycelium Bitcoin Android Wallet To Store ... How to get a bitcoin wallet  What is the best bitcoin wallet?  Bitcoin wallet review How to create a bitcoin wallet and get a bitcoin address on your android phone Top 5 Ways to Buy Bitcoin Without ID

Each time you request blockchain data from a wallet, the server may be able to view your IP address and connect this to the address data requested. Each wallet handles data requests differently. If privacy is important to you, use a wallet that downloads the whole blockchain like Bitcoin Core or Armory. Tor can be used with other wallets to shield your IP address, but this doesn’t prevent a ... The Mycelium Wallet has created a Bitcoin wallet for me, then I've written down a 12-word passphrase for the wallet backup. However it looks like a set of words (in the Mycelium) to generate these phrases is limited - at least I've got a passphrase with one word repeated two times. How can I make sure this passphrase is unique in our world where more than 7 billion people live? The lingo may ... mycelium bitcoin wallet review - Mycelium is made to support only Bitcoin; however, local trading is enabled through the Mycelium Wallet, and third parties, such as Ethereum may be able to integrate their offerings to work with the Mycelium Wallet. Overall, users appreciate the features and convenience the Mycelium Wallet provides for storing and managing bitcoin transactions. However Ive managed to export the private keys of my three accounts that I had created at that time Who has the private keys of a bitcoin address, owns the address, therefore keeping the private key secure is paramount. The private key is necessary to sign a transaction, which is the way the bitcoins do get transfer from one address to another one. Basically without the private key, you cant ...

[index] [50607] [46840] [34472] [1543] [20020] [18020] [31022] [29320] [5798] [21100]

Mycelium HD Wallet (Android)

How To Setup & Configure MyCelium Android Wallet: https://coinsutra.com/mycelium/ MyCelium is a popular Android Bitcoin wallet that you can use right now t... Hey guys! In this episode of Bitcoin Basics I will show you step by step on how to download, install and set up a Hot Wallet, in this case, Mycelium Bitcoin ... Details about WHERE to get a FREE Bitcoin wallet for your phone (App Store, Play Store). How to generate a Bitcoin address. How to add it to your WatchMyBit ... Mycelium Bitcoin wallet for your phone and how to back it up, the features, Tor tech built in, private key access and so on. ** Note never use the JAXX wallet as it loses money, lots of people had ... Mycelium with the new HD wallet. With the HD feature, you can generate a HD wallet that generates random addresses for each (receipt of) payment (=extra privacy).

#