“It’s time for Bitcoin to grow up”, said Jimmy Nyguyen in his opening remarks at the CoinGeek Week conference. That set the tone for the next three days and 30 or so presentations.
The hash war between Bitcoin ABC and SV had played out. It was fierce - and had changed the world for the combatants in just a couple of short weeks. But Jimmy, and Calvin Ayre, who introduced the conference, were confident that their team - including CoinGeek, nChain and SVPool - are now in a great place from which to build for the future around Bitcoin SV.
Since the conference was held just ahead of the tenth anniversary of the first transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain, the sense of growing up and moving on to the next chapter had an extra resonance. As to what the way forward would look like, Craig Wright came on stage later that morning and captured it in his first words: “OK, it’s really, really simple: we need transaction volume.”
During the rest of the conference at London’s Mermaid Theatre, the path to more transactions, of more kinds, was explained through a kaleidoscope of big visions and inspiring implementations that are already up and running.
One theme that jumped out was the sense that crypto is starting to work with the grain of the world as it exists - rather than trying to build a parallel universe. Just three examples: Elizabeth White announced a debit card that uses crypto and has Mastercard as a partner. Stephan Nilsson is building a supply chain ID system that works on the blockchain alongside SAP - a global data management giant.
And CentBee’s Angus Brown talked about how his wallet was part of a recent initiative with the (very real) bar chain Brewdog. Again, it was a question of working with the world as it is: “bank cards are not going away tomorrow,” said Angus. So CentBee “needs to feel like a payment card, but better.” The experience with giving people wallets to buy beer a few minutes later produced an “I get it” reaction: “it’s not Lambos, it’s just beer”.
That kind of ordinariness and familiarity is one of the aims of Ryan X. Charles’ Moneybutton. It’s designed to integrate with any online site, with an endless array of possible functions - starting with money. As Ryan put it, we’re “making payments as easy as the Facebook Like button”. Crucially, Moneybutton is “just an interface for you to use the power of the blockchain”. The end user sees money in the currency they’re familiar with - pounds, dollars or whatever. So if you want to leave a tip, you don’t need to know what it is in Bitcoin: that side of the transaction is all behind the scenes.
Talking of working with the real world, what could be more real that using the power of crypto mining to grow vegetables? Or drying, er, human waste to turn it into fuel. That’s what’s happening just outside Montreal, courtesy of BlockchainDomes. The idea is that the heat generated during the mining process shouldn’t be wasted. Is this the start of a green crypto movement?
Summing up at the end of day two, Jimmy Nyguyen reminded his audience that technical solutions are just part of the work in crypto. Alongside that, “a business-minded, real world approach is important”.
Embracing reality - that’s what crypto is doing today. Now please fasten your seatbelts for day three of the conference, whose theme is The Future.
The post Bitcoin embraces reality at the CoinGeek Week Conference appeared first on Coingeek.
The CoinGeek-sponsored Bitcoin BCH Miners Choice Summit, held at The Grand Harbour in Hong Kong last November 2, wasn’t just an opportunity for Bitcoin BCH miners to network. It was also an event where they learned why Bitcoin SV stands out from other competing implementations.
Jimmy Nguyen, CEO of the nChain Group, and Steve Shadders, director of solutions and engineering as well as technical director of the Bitcoin SV project, took the stage to explain the four pillars on which Bitcoin SV sits: stability, scalability, security, and safe and instant transactions. All “S” words, according to Nguyen, in honor of Satoshi Nakamoto.
“We are asking for miners to choose and support our vision of Bitcoin Cash, and we believe miners would choose Bitcoin SV as the implementation because it will ensure them the most long term profitability. And we chose to create this implementation because of differences of opinion we had with the other Bitcoin Cash developer groups which we felt were trying too hard to change Bitcoin, and as Craig was talking about, and also we believe it’s time for the Bitcoin development to be led not by the protocol developer groups, which who had led them for so long, but to be really be led by what’s the interest of miners,” Nguyen told the audience.
The nChain CEO also talked about his belief that it’s time for Bitcoin to lock in the protocols, just as the Internet protocol was locked in, thus allowing development of the internet into what we have today. Nguyen stressed, “It’s time for Bitcoin to grow up and professionalize.”
Watch Jimmy Nguyen and Steve Shadders’ presentation, “Bitcoin SV: The BCH Implementation for Satoshi Vision,” below. Nguyen is also speaking at the CoinGeek Week Conference, happening on November 28-30 in London, with the special, invitation-only Miners Day event on November 27.
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post Jimmy Nguyen tells BCH miners: It’s time for Bitcoin to grow up and professionalize appeared first on Coingeek.
Last November 15, during the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network upgrade, a hash war has been fought with miners voting between two competing implementations of the BCH protocol—Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC.
As expected, Bitcoin ABC took a temporary early lead, thanks to an artificial burst from “rented” hash power subsidized by Roger Ver’s Bitcoin.com, which announced that it would use pool customer hash from the Bitcoin Core (BTC) network onto the BCH chain for 24 hours, as well as from ABC’s main supporter Bitmain Technologies.
The hash war, however, isn’t far from over. Bitcoin SV’s strongest supporters, CoinGeek and nChain, is committed to a long term fight using their legitimate, sustained hash—long after Bitmain can no longer afford to bleed money for rented hash.
On November 17, nChain CEO Jimmy Nguyen appeared on Keyport’s live stream coverage of the Bitcoin BCH hash war to speak the truth, as well as explain to the BCH community the consequences of their willingness to accept a burst of rented hash to quickly decide the hash war. And to those who are out there on social media, cheering for the supposed ABC victory, Nguyen posed this question: Is this the precedent we want to set for the Bitcoin Cash community?
Read the full transcript of Jimmy Nguyen’s Keyport speech below.
TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES ABOUT THE ONGOING BITCOIN CASH HASH WAR
Jimmy Nguyen – CEO, nChain Group
Since the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network upgrade on November 15, a hash war has been fought with miners voting between Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC – two competing implementations of the BCH protocol. nChain and CoinGeek support Bitcoin SV. As we fully expected, Bitcoin ABC appeared to take a temporary early lead by receiving an artificial burst from temporary, “rented” hash power subsidized by Roger Ver’s company Bitcoin.com, which announced it would move its pool customer hash from the rival Bitcoin Core (BTC) network onto the BCH blockchain for just 24 hours, and from ABC’s main supporter Bitmain Technologies.
Many observers have quick to prematurely call a win for Bitcoin ABC. But the hash war is not over. nChain and CoinGeek continue to fight, mining with our legitimate, sustained hash committed to support the Bitcoin Cash network and the Satoshi Vision. For days before the hard fork, Bitcoin SV had support from over 75% of the network hash.. Knowing they clearly did not have enough support to win, Bitcoin ABC’s backers had to rent and subsidize BTC hash to move onto BCH to use as voting power. When they can no longer to afford to pay massive daily amounts to rent hash for this BCH hash war, we will still be here fighting, and the consistent hash power supporting Bitcoin SV will overtake Bitcoin ABC. That is the inevitable result of this BCH hash war
On November 17, I appeared on Keyport’s live stream coverage of the BCH hash war to provide my views and a statement to the Bitcoin Cash community about “Truth and Consequences” of their willingness to accept a burst of rented hash to quickly decide the hash war. This is a transcript of my speech, edited for clarity.
I’m about to tell you truth and consequences. These are the truth and consequences for the Bitcoin Cash community of what’s happening in this hash war.
So the weekend went exactly as I expected. There was the fork on Thursday, November 15; there was a huge burst of hash that came into the network on the side of Bitcoin ABC that was rented or subsidised— probably from the BTC network, in order to artificially boost the support for Bitcoin ABC far higher than it had ever been in the days and weeks coming up to the hard fork.
Then the Bitcoin ABC supporters decided to declare early victory, because they seemed so far ahead in hash. Then they started going to the exchanges, if not even before the hard fork. (I think they did look before to try and get them to recognise their chain as Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
They added checkpoint—not a surprise, our developers heard about that a week ago.
So everything that happened is exactly as I predicted, and we’re continuing to plug away.
And people are probably wondering why we didn’t bring more hash in to support the Bitcoin SV side of the coin. Let me explain why. We actually had plenty of petahash offered to us; in fact, we actually didn’t have to go ask any miners or mining pools to lend us their hash.
Before and after the BCH Miners Choice Summit on November 2nd that CoinGeek sponsored and which I attended, we had a potential deal for thousands of petahash —to be rented and subsidised by us much like, I’m sure, Bitmain and Roger Ver were doing in some capacity or variation. While I was at that summit, we had thousands more petahash offered to us to rent, by people who just did not like Bitmain, opposed the Bitcoin ABC implementation, or wanted to support us for all kinds of reasons.
I could have walked away from that day with easily ten to fifteen thousand petahash worth of support for Bitcoin SV. And it’s not for lack of money or resources that we decided not to do it because Calvin Ayre, CoinGeek and nChain could have easily afforded to do that for as long as it took during this battle, and we would have blown the Bitcoin ABC side out of the water, at least compared to the hash that they have demonstrated so far in the charts you can see. But I actually had a realization at that moment in Hong Kong about whether that was the right thing to do; and I decided it was not, because of the consequences it would have in the future for the Bitcoin Cash community. And here’s what they are:
The whole reason that such hash was available on the BTC network to move onto BCH is because the people who should have fought Bitcoin Core did not, and splintered off to create the Bitcoin Cash network, and allowed BTC to continue on. That’s perfectly fine. But now they’re borrowing hash, renting it, subsidizing it from the very network they so vehemently oppose—many of them - to try and claim a victory on the BCH network.
I want you to think about the hypocrisy of that, because it’s staggering. I also want you to think about the game that is being played here, if you are able to just move hash for a day or two from the rival network that many of our community do not like, and use that to claim victory. What does it say about what you would do just to win what looks to many people right now like a sporting contest.
In addition, I want people to know that I thought long and hard about what should be the governing model to decide disagreement between rule sets for Bitcoin - because that’s what this is, that’s what’s really being tested in this moment right now. It’s not just about a particular feature set here or there. It’s about what should be the governing model when there are disagreements.
And think about this: when the Nakamoto Consensus was written in the Bitcoin white paper, there was supposed to only be one Bitcoin network. There was not supposed to be miners on a network running the same hash algorithm that you could pay to rent their hash to come in and vote in a disagreement over rule sets. Instead, the Bitcoin network as we know it, this whole system, it’s magic is in its economic incentives. Miners have incentives to provide the computing power and security of the network; they earn block rewards, they earn transaction fees, they have the investment and monetary interest therefore to make decisions on rule sets that best continue that economic incentive and the security of the network.
But if you are not mining on the network and don’t have your own investment in it, and you are not making money on this network but making it over on BTC, why is it that you should have a vote for the rule set for Bitcoin Cash, particularly when it is hash borrowed from the very network that Bitcoin Cash was designed to split off from?
So the Nakamoto Consensus is being tested for the first time right now, and I want you to really think about that. Obviously, Satoshi Nakamoto could not have envisioned, at the time the white paper was written, that there was going to be some splintered-off network using the same hash algorithm. And with the idea of one CPU equals one vote, or miner hash power equals the vote, it was designed—and I’m sure most logical people can agree with it—to recognise that the people who have an ongoing continuous invested interest in the network are the ones that should vote on a rule set.
But what has happened over this weekend is that the supporters of ABC have been so quick to come forward, and say, after a day or two of hash bursts provided by Roger Ver and his company Bitcoin.com’s move of hash from his customers from BTC over to BCH - and I’m sure move of BTC hash by Bitmain and other sources - after one or two days of bursts, they are so quick to declare, therefore they must be the winner.
But we took an alternate path. And as you can now probably understand why Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre have been so repeatedly vocal about the need for genuine and legitimate sustained hash that supports the network. We made the decision to fight with genuine honest hash. And that is why, if you notice, over the days leading up to the hard fork., the CoinGeek, SVPool, and BMG pools started gradually increasing the hash they were devoting to the network.
That was done for a reason. It wasn’t just an all-in burst to vote on the day of the hard fork. It was designed to demonstrate continued commitment to sustain this network and a desire to show the world we are going to continue using that hash on this network. It wasn’t a flash in the pan.
And so the situation that has unfolded this weekend is basically akin to saying: I want to have an election in the United States, and I don’t think I have enough votes, so I’m going to go pay people from Canada to come to the US for a day, vote, and leave—even those people who have no interest in the outcome of that election; it does not affect their lives, their livelihood, what pocket of money they get to pay their bills. That is what the people on the ABC side of the fence have just created: the idea that you can do that and that you can do that every time there’s a disagreement over the rule set.
So I really want people to think about what kind of system you want to decide consensus rule disagreements in the future for Bitcoin. Is it who can pay the most for one or two days to rent hash from a competing rival network that you escaped from? Or is it the votes of the miners who are ongoing providers of sustained hash, because they have an ongoing economic interest in the network?
And you saw the numbers in the days before the fork: it was clear the SV side of was demonstrating on a daily basis—for multiple days—far more than majority support from the network.
I believe that should be the governing model for Bitcoin consensus rule decisions. I also want everyone out there in the community to think about the consequences for the future. IF you are so quick to say that ABC should be declared the victor and awarded the BCH ticker symbol, and its consensus rules should govern, you’ve just walked into a bigger problematic box that I knew you would. Because I knew this would all happen; it’s all unfolded on Twitter and online. You’ve just provided the playbook for a big corporation with really big pockets, a state actor of government, anyone who could afford to pay for just one or two days of rented hash, to come over to the BCH network and get its rule set implemented.
Now that may not be nefarious; it could be Google, IBM, or Microsoft, who are very interested in blockchain technology, and they want to shape the Bitcoin Cash network with rules that favor their business model. This may be perfectly legitimate, and some people may support it. But I know many of you out there in the Bitcoin community would say: “well, wait a minute, I don’t want some big corporations just coming to pay, to take over the rule set of my network.” It would not cost that much —20 or 30 million dollars could have bought them a victory in a day or two according to what all the people screaming and cheering for ABC want to see happen.
A state actor could do that easily, that’s a drop in the bucket. And if you continue this path where you say “AHA!” after a day or two with bursts of hash that did not exist before and were just taken from the BTC network, if that is the way to determine the rule set, you have just set up the biggest vulnerability ever to the Bitcoin Cash network: for someone with a deep pocket to come in and implement whatever rule set they want.
And for those of you who aren’t a big fan of big corporations and government - you know who you are out there in the Bitcoin Cash community - I think you need to sit back and think: what have I just done? Because that’s what I thought, and this is exactly what I knew was going to happen. I sat there in Hong Kong, and I had all these offers of hash that we could have taken, and we could have used it to quickly win. But I had a moment where I had to say: I had a moment to say, is this the precedent we want to set for the Bitcoin Cash community? That anyone who has a deep pocket to pay for hash for a day or two, who doesn’t have to mine the day before - such as a government, a big corporation who could be a zero miner the day before - to just pay enough miners enough money on a hard-fork date to have enough hash to have its rule set take over?
That’s exactly the situation you are creating now for all of those who are out there on social media and online, cheering for a supposed ABC victory. That’s all you think it takes. But that’s not what it should be, and that’s not what it was envisioned to be at a time when the white paper was introduced to the world with the idea that there was just going to be a single Bitcoin network with a single network of miners who all had an economic incentive and interest to mine that network, and therefore make the best decisions for the viability and vibrancy of that network.
I’ll close by saying that that’s the truth I wanted the Bitcoin community to realise and the consequences of the path you’re trying to take. At nChain and on behalf of the CoinGeek people who are somewhere else, I want to say—and if it’s not clear already—we’re very committed with the SV project to really advance the Satoshi Vision. Obviously, some people have a different interpretation of it; that’s okay, but if there’s one thing we’ve been consistent about time and time again—we want the original Bitcoin. We want to see it grow to what it was meant to be. You can disagree with us about what feature set it should be, what block cap size, about anything else. But there is one thing we consistently work on, day in and day out. You don’t have to like Craig, but it’s very clear that is his mission and vision, and it’s ours as well. And that vision has to be enforced by a pure understanding of what Nakamoto Consensus should be: loads of miners who have an economic interest day in and day out—not people who can be mercenaries, who are rented to come in and allow anyone, any corporation or state actor, to take over your network.
To some people out there who are cheering for an ABC victory after a day or two: I want you to think long and hard about what you just did, if that’s the result you want. Because you’re not going to like it—the hypocrisy, I think, is staggering for where Bitcoin Cash came from. . . from Bitcoin Core.
So it’s time for this community to make a choice, to make a choice about how you want disagreements to be decided, and how you want to allow the ruleset for your chain to be governed.
I know what choice I’m going to make, and it’s a choice that supports the Satoshi Vision. I’m going to leave now, because I have a lot of work to do to support that vision.
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post ‘Think about the game being played here’: Jimmy Nguyen tells the truth about Bitcoin BCH hash war appeared first on Coingeek.
Today, the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network goes through a protocol upgrade, and miners will begin using their hash power to vote between two competing implementations: Bitcoin SV, which seeks to restore the original Bitcoin protocol, and Bitcoin ABC, the prior leading implementation. One area of disagreement is that Bitcoin ABC is adding a new opcode not contained in the original Satoshi protocol: OP_CHECKDATASIG (or OP_DATASIGVERIFY) (we’ll call it OP_DSV for short). The Bitcoin Unlimited group also supports adding OP_DSV. Bitcoin SV opposes adding any new non-Satoshi op_codes, believing that the original Bitcoin protocol has everything it needs to enable development on top of it.
We also oppose OP_DSV for another reason: it presents legal risk. At nChain, we talk consistently about the need to build Bitcoin BCH such that it can operate in the real world: to meet real business needs, to be used by real people, and to comply with real laws. For some time, nChain’s Chief Scientist Craig Wright has voiced legal warnings that adding OP_DSV will knowingly introduce illegal transactions into the BCH blockchain. As a former technology and intellectual property lawyer (for 21 years in the U.S.), I want to add my thoughts to this important conversation about OP_DSV. I express the issue somewhat differently than Craig, but my conclusion is similar to his: as it has been proposed for usage, OP_DSV presents legal risks for the developers advocating it and any application using it for problematic purposes.
OP_DSV Proponents Identify Illegal Use Cases
OP_DSV is meant to enable usage of oracles to validate external information and allow an automated smart contract to operate. As one of its proponents, Emil Oldenberg, CTO of Bitcoin.com, describes it:
The new opcode verifies a message, returns true or false if the message is signed by the pubkey stated. This enables us to write something commonly referred to as an “oracle”. An oracle is a third party service that can be used as an authority for facts, statistics and data.
Like any technology feature, op codes can be used for both lawful and non-lawful purposes. The problem for OP_DSV is that its key proponents vocally proclaim uses cases that are, at best, legally problematic, and at worst, clearly illegal. This makes it apparent up front that code developers and companies which then use DSV transactions for those problematic purposes know or “reasonably foresee” that OP_DSV can be used for illegal activity.
Take for example the blog post written by Bitcoin.com’s CTO Emil Oldenburg about the new op code. Emil says OP_DSV serves the explicit purpose of both enabling and facilitating gambling applications, such as “on-chain bets” or “wagers” and “escrow services” – in other words, facilitating the exchange of tokens or financial assets without any actual exchange acting as the regulated approved authority. Indeed, what he describes is a marketplace of bets without the actual financial assets being traded — which falls directly in the U.S. Supreme Court’s classic definition from 1906 of an illegal bucket shop:
“An establishment, nominally for the transaction of a stock exchange business, or business of similar character, but really for the registration of bets, or wagers, usually for small amounts, on the rise or fall of the prices of stocks, grain, oil, etc., there being no transfer or delivery of the stock or commodities nominally dealt in.”
(Gatewood v. North Carolina, 203 U.S. 531, 536 (1906).) Bucket shops are illegal in the U.S. (and in other countries). In fact, just this July, the CFTC obtained a $3 million judgment against InTrade, an Irish prediction market for trading binary options – bets on commodity prices – in violation of a 2005 cease and desist order.
Bucket shops operating specifically in the blockchain world have also been the subject of legal enforcement action. Sand Hill Exchange was a blockchain-based bucket shop launched in 2014 as a fantasy trading site, allowing you to bet on the eventual market price of start-up companies. Although it shut down by April 2015, the SEC obtained an administrative order against its founders and issued a $20,000 fine.
Yet, even though it is quite clear bucket shops are illegal, we have Bitcoin.com’s CTO (one of the key proponents of OP_DSV) explaining a use case of the opcode that can easily be construed as an illegal bucket shop. That is a problem for a company or person who later uses OP_DSV to operate exactly that type of bucket-shop marketplace or transaction.
Even worse, in a recent video statement, Bitcoin.com’s CEO Roger Ver suggests that the Bitcoin Cash blockchain can be used to facilitate transactions for the purchase of drugs, and any type of transactions for that matter, saying that the blockchain allows for “permission-less use. You don’t need permission to do whatever the hell you want with it. If you want to gamble on the Internet, that’s just fine too. If you want to buy drugs on the Internet, that’s just fine too.” We fear that is the ultimate goal—decentralized marketplaces where people can buy anything, even items illegal in their jurisdictions—which some of OP_DSV’s vocal supporters want to achieve. We of course support everyone’s right to their own opinion, and take no position on how and whether governments should regulate gambling, drugs, or anything else. But countries have established laws criminalizing certain types of goods and activity, and those laws govern the real world in which we need Bitcoin to grow.
Legal Liability for Third Party Use of Code
So what if OP_DSV can be used for illegal purposes? You may be asking how people working or operating on the BCH network can be at risk if they did not themselves conduct an illegal DSV transaction?
My concerns about legal risk are not hypothetical. U.S. government agencies have made clear that legal responsibility can even extend in some circumstances to developers who create and release code that is illegally used by others. Just last month, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission commissioner Brian Quintenz gave a speech about how core developers and users of public blockchains generally should not be held legally responsible for unlawful activity that occurs on that blockchain. However, he acknowledged there is a lack of definitive guidance in the law, and proposed the appropriate liability standard for code developers to be whether “code developers could reasonably foresee, at the time they created the code, that it would likely be used by U.S. persons in a manner violative of CFTC regulations.”
It may sound surprising and scary for developers to have legal exposure for how other people use their code, but it’s the real world of how government agencies are prepared to think. For example, Augur has been under scrutiny for some time. Augur is a decentralized prediction-market protocol built on Ethereum; some characterize it as an illegal “bucket shop” or prediction market. When asked about Augur and the legal responsibility of its creators for what users do on the platform, CFTC spokeswoman Erica Elliott Richardson said in an email reply:
“[…] I can say generally that offering or facilitating a product or activity by way of releasing code onto a blockchain does not absolve any entity or individual from complying with pertinent laws or CFTC regulations.”
Recently, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission took concrete action which makes clear that operators of a decentralized service can in fact be liable for illegal activity committed by others on their network. The SEC charged EtherDelta, a supposed decentralized token exchange, and its founder with operating an unregistered securities exchange. It announced a settlement for EtherDelta’s founder to pay $388,000 in penalties, disgorgement, and interest. This case is seen as a warning sign to other decentralized exchanges. As Andrew Hinkes, an adjunct professor at the New York University School of Law, has most recently observed regarding the EtherDelta case:
“Just because you make it and then it gets operated by a decentralised network of others doesn’t mean that any prospective responsibility or liability is gone. It’s just possibly relocated.”
While many people may disagree with the legal standard proposed by the CFTC and the SEC case against EtherDelta, the message from these events is clear: even if you create or operate code and applications for a decentralized or P2P network, there are circumstances in which you can be liable for enabling or contributing to illegal activities of people who use that code or application. This includes code developers, if they can “reasonably foresee” their code is likely to be used for illegal purposes – at least if the CFTC Commissioner’s view is adopted as a legal standard. This could potentially also include other participants in the network, if their actions are reasonably foreseeable as contributing to illegal activity.
Outside of the cryptocurrency world, the legal system has witnessed many cases where computer programmers and technology providers have been criminally prosecuted or civilly sued because someone else illegally used their code or technology.
1. A Latvian computer programmer was sentenced to 14 years in prison by a Virginia federal court for designing Scan4You. That program was connected to the 2013 credit-card information hack of the Target retail store chain. The programmer argued the software could be used for lawful purposes, and said he should be held responsible for when it was used illegally. The program allowed hackers to see if anti-virus programmes would identify their hacking software as malicious, who then packaged it into malware kits sold to cybercriminals. The court rejected the defendant’s theory that he should not be held liable because “all online businesses have legitimate and illegitimate users,” holding that such a theory does not apply in criminal cases like this one because, as he told the defendant, “There’s zero chance that you didn’t know the harm being done by the malware hackers used your service to perfect.”
2. An Arkansas software developer pleaded guilty for developing, marketing, and distributing products used by cybercriminals, though he claimed it was designed for legal purposes. Additional articles on the same case can be found here and here.
3. A 21-year old Kentucky developer created and sold a “remote access trojan,” claiming it was intended as a legitimate tool for system administrators, before later admitting in a plea agreement that he was aware some customers used the software to control others’ computers without their knowledge or permission.
4. The motion picture industry has successfully filed many lawsuits against file-sharing sites that use P2P software to facilitate illegal copyright infringement. The Betamax defense, as it came to be known was established in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1987); it stands for the proposition that the distributor of a technology product cannot be found liable for infringement by users if the product has “substantial non-infringing uses.” However, years later when presented with a case in the P2P context, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), the U.S. Court Supreme Court held that while the Grokster service had substantial non-infringing uses, secondary liability for copyright infringement was possible given evidence that Grokster intentionally induced, encouraged, and had actual knowledge of direct copyright infringement on its platform.
Therefore, even if a technology can be used for non-infringing purposes, its provider and other operates can still have secondary liability for other people’s illegal of that technology. As a ComputerWorld sub-headline succinctly stated: “Companies that actively enable infringement can be held liable for sins of their users.”
Build Bitcoin for the Real World
Of course, these legal principles will evolve and may develop differently in the cryptocurrency world. And legal standards will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But the warning which everyone in the Bitcoin world should heed is this: do not advocate for technical features by identifying illegal use cases. You are just setting up legal risk for yourself, application providers, and other network participants who use your proposed feature.
At nChain, that’s why we always look at Bitcoin as more than a technical system. We do not propose technical features simply because they can replicate some feature developers envy on Ethereum or other blockchain projects. We do not propose technical changes because we feel like experimenting with Bitcoin. We carefully evaluate technical needs for Bitcoin’s growth to be sound, stable money and the global public blockchain of the future. But we always balance technical concepts with the economic, business, and legal impact.
That is why we support the Satoshi Vision and the Bitcoin SV implementation: a simpler approach to restore the original Bitcoin protocol, keep it stable, and allow it to massively scale. In order to achieve the Satoshi Vision – a world where big businesses and billions of people use Bitcoin - we need the BCH network to operate in the real world. Bitcoin must meet the needs of real businesses, real people, and real laws.
Jimmy Nguyen is CEO of the nChain Group. Before joining nChain, Jimmy had a 21-year career as an intellectual property and digital technology lawyer in the U.S., where he was a partner at three major law firms. In 2008, Lawdragon named him as one of the 500 Leading Lawyers in America.
nChain’s content analyst Sebastian Ploetzeneder contributed to this article.
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post The Real World: Legal Risks of Adding OP_DATASIGVERIFY to the BCH Protocol appeared first on Coingeek.
With the CoinGeek Week Conference coming up at the end of November, we asked nChain CEO Jimmy Nyguyen, one of the speakers, what attendees can expect from the three day event:
The Conference falls around the time of two Bitcoin anniversaries, the first being the publication of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original White Paper proposing Bitcoin in October 2008. For Jimmy, that makes for a special reason to encourage rapid and widespread adoption of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) now as “the electronic cash of the future”.
Jimmy admits there’s been “a slower path to scaling of the network than we’d like to see”. He believes that the solution is the raising of the default maximum block size on the blockchain and a return to the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto - including the restoration of the specific instructions or “opcodes” set out by Satoshi:
You don’t need to understand coding or the blockchain to benefit from Bitcoin Cash in your business. The CoinGeek Week conference will offer practical advice to retailers and service providers to help them take their first steps in adopting crypto - and will hear from some inspiring pioneers who are already using it:
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post Our mission for BCH: “Growing it, scaling it, expanding its usage - now!” appeared first on Coingeek.
2018年11月1日——CoinGeek很荣幸地宣布其500万英镑竞赛的赢家。此次竞赛目的是为比特币现金BCH区块链寻找领先的支付标记化解决方案。获胜项目为“Tokenized”，这是一个专为比特币现金（BCH）网络所设计且遵循最初的比特币“中本聪愿景”的链上代币系统。Tokenized 团队成员来自澳大利亚及新加坡，包括詹姆斯·博尔丁（James Belding）、塞缪尔·乔治斯（Samuel Georges）、 斯科特·巴尔（Scott Barr）、法里德·乌登（Farid Uddeen）及布伦丹·李（Brendan Lee）。
Tokenized将现有的比特币现金（BCH）协议与标准的开源智能合约相结合，与当今任何其他系统相比，其成本更低，表现力更强，而且更安全。通过Tokenized，现在世界上任何人都可以在比特币现金（BCH）网络上使用定制化的条款和条件以创建和运营自己的智能合约。他们随之可以使用智能合约来促进那些代表现实资产的代币的发行、管理和交换。
Tokenized协议可以创建和交换多种用途广泛的代币，包括：
· 金融资产，如普通股和优先股、固定利率债券、浮动利率债券、期货、远期合约、掉期交易、期权、奇异金融衍生产品、货币、资产担保证券、债务抵押债券；
· 票券：电影，活动，航空旅行，交通和其他活动等；
· 信用和积分系统（优惠券、忠诚积分、碳信用、会员资格）；
· 许可证。
Tokenized的独特之处在于它专注于帮助公司处理现实世界的合法合规问题。真实企业希望遵守适用于其代币的法律（如证券法规），且大多数投资者和客户也希望得到法律系统的合法保护。该原则是Tokenized的设计核心，它让代币发行者有能力遵循世界上任何机构、州或国家的法律法规。它还为代币发行者提供工具，使其能够执行适用于其代币的法律，并允许组织执行各项投票（如股东投票、公投等）的治理功能。一切全在链上执行。
CoinGeek创始人卡尔文·艾尔（Calvin Ayre）表明：
“随着比特币现金BCH准备大规模扩容，我们一直在等待代币解决方案以刺激比特币现金
（BCH）使用量的快速增长。Tokenized解决方案允许多种资产的支付标记化。它将引发有用代币的“寒武纪大爆炸”，使各种行业商家和更多以比特币现金（BCH）为载体的应用在使用代币上呈爆炸性增长。CoinGeek很荣幸地将我们的竞赛冠军奖颁发给Tokenized，并全力支持该项目正在进行的工作，以期望展示比特币现金（BCH）的全部潜能。”
Tokenized系统从多个方面证明原始比特币中本聪愿景的可行性。它充分利用比特币现金（BCH）协议现存的技术特征，例如OP_RETURN中的元数据；它不需要任何新的op_codes或其他协议更改。它是一个链上解决方案，不会创建另外的代币层（与Bitmain Technologies所支持但富有争议的虫洞协议不同）。此外，Tokenized不需要燃烧比特币现金（BCH）货币来创建代币（同上，与虫洞协议不同），因此不会扰乱比特币系统的经济激励性和安全性。
nChain集团（CoinGeek支付标记化竞赛的合作伙伴）的首席执行官吉米·阮（Jimmy Nguyen），评论道：
“我们一直相信中本聪创建的比特币原始协议，该协议包含了比特币现金（BCH）成为新货币并启用高级编程功能所需的一切。Tokenized团队已证明中本聪愿景的有效性。他们充分利用比特币基本元素，提供了一个在技术层面上集优雅和全方位商业友好于一身的系统。此系统优于任何已发布的比特币现金（BCH）代币解决方案。我们的技术审核团队对此感到印象深刻。”
CoinGeek创始人卡尔文·艾尔进一步阐述道：“这就是为什么比特币现金（BCH）协议开发者，如Bitcoin ABC，不应该将试验性更改强加在比特币原始设计上。原始的中本聪协议已有世界所需的一切。我们只需要将其恢复，让其保持稳定和大规模扩容。这就是为什么我一再敦促世界上所有的比特币矿工运用这个比特币现金（BCH）的全新比特币SV全节点实现方式，并支持中本聪愿景。”
Tokenized团队的协议攥写者詹姆斯·博尔丁发表评论：
“我们团队就成为CoinGeek竞赛的获胜者感到十分荣幸。我们一致相信比特币现金BCH。比特币现金（BCH）网络如今功能齐全，是唯一可扩容至服务地球上每个人的分布式分类帐技术。我们的Tokenized系统旨在将比特币现金（BCH）原生技术的全部属性运用在实现智能合约与代币上。我相信在不久的将来几乎所有在比特币现金（BCH）网络上的资产都会被标记化。我们已经创造了Tokenized解决方案以支持在比特币现金（BCH）上完成的全球扩容和代币多样化。”
若想了解更多关于Tokenized解决方案，请参加将于11月27日至11月30日在伦敦举办的CoinGeek周大会。詹姆斯·博尔丁将就Tokenized发表演讲，整个Tokenized团队也将出席。另外，马上（免费）加入bComm协会。
CoinGeek相信比特币现金（BCH）生态系统将能从越来越多的代币解决方案受益，并最终推动中本聪愿景。因为，CoinGeek将继续开展其支付标记化竞赛，期待颁出100万英镑的二级奖励。详情将在数日后发布于CoinGeek.com的竞赛页面。
关于Tokenized项目
Tokenized白皮书、协议规范和智能合约代码将于11月中旬发布供公众预览。如果您想了解更多以及获得相关消息，请访问https://tokenized.cash/并进行注册。您也可以在Tokenized Telegram频道上加入Tokenized团队：
Tokenized团队：
詹姆斯·博尔丁（推特： @JamesBelding）
塞缪尔·乔治斯（推特： @daftspunk）
斯科特·巴尔（推特： @scottjbarr）
法里德·乌登
布伦丹·李 （推特： @coinstorageguru）
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post CoinGeek宣布“Tokenized”项目为比特币现金BCH代币解决方案的500万英镑竞赛赢家 appeared first on Coingeek.
31 October 2018 - CoinGeek is pleased to announce a winner in its £5 million contest to find the leading tokenisation solution for the Bitcoin BCH blockchain. The winning project is “Tokenized,” an on-chain token system designed exclusively for the BCH network and proudly using the original “Satoshi Vision” design of Bitcoin. The Tokenized team is James Belding, Samuel Georges, Scott Barr, Farid Uddeen, and Brendan Lee – from the Brisbane, Australia area.
Tokenized combines capabilities of the existing BCH protocol with a standard open-source smart contract that is lower cost, more expressive, and more secure than any other system today. With Tokenized, it is now possible for anyone in the world to create and operate their own smart contract on the BCH network using customizable terms and conditions. They can then use the smart contract to facilitate the issuance, management, and exchange of tokens that represent real-world assets.
The Tokenized protocol enables creation and exchange of many kinds of useful tokens, including:
• financial assets, such as common and preferred stock, fixed-rate bonds, floating-rate notes, futures, forwards, swaps, options, exotic derivatives, currencies, asset-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations;
• tickets for movies, events, air travel, transportation, and other activities
• credit and point systems (coupons, loyalty points, carbon credits, memberships);
• licenses.
Tokenized is unique in its focus on helping companies deal with real-world legal compliance issues. Real businesses want to abide by laws applicable to their tokens (such as securities regulations), and most investors and customers also want the protection of a legally compliant system. This principle is at the core of the Tokenized design, which provides token issuers with the ability to follow any set of laws or regulations from any agency, state or country in the world. It also provides tools for token issuers to enable enforcement of laws applicable to their token, and governance features for organizations to carry out a variety of votes (shareholder votes, referendums, etc.), all on-chain.
CoinGeek founder Calvin Ayre declares:
“With Bitcoin BCH ready to massively scale, we have all been waiting for token solutions to ignite rapid growth in BCH usage. The Tokenized solution enables tokenization of so many kinds of assets that it will spark a Cambrian explosion of useful tokens for businesses in all industries and even more applications on BCH. CoinGeek is thrilled to honor Tokenized as our contest winner, and support the project’s on-going work to show the full power of BCH.”
The Tokenized system proves in several ways that the original “Satoshi Vision” of Bitcoin works. It uses technical features already existing within the BCH protocol, such as metadata through OP_return; it does not require any new OP_codes or other protocol changes. It is an on-chain solution and does not create a separate token layer (unlike the controversial Wormhole protocol supported by Bitmain Technologies). Furthermore, Tokenized does not require burning BCH coins to create tokens (again, unlike Wormhole), which disturbs the Bitcoin system’s economic incentives and security.
Jimmy Nguyen, CEO of nChain Group (CoinGeek’s partner on the tokenisation contest), comments:
“We have always believed the original Bitcoin protocol, as created by Satoshi Nakamoto, contains everything needed for BCH to become the new money and enable advanced programmable functions. The Tokenized team proved that Satoshi Vision works. Our technical review team was impressed by how they used foundational elements in Bitcoin to deliver a technically elegant, comprehensive business-friendly system which is superior to other published BCH token solutions.”
CoinGeek founder Calvin Ayre further observed: “This is exactly why BCH protocol developers, such as Bitcoin ABC, should not be adding experimental changes to Bitcoin’s original design. The original Satoshi protocol already has everything the world needs. We just need to simply restore it, keep it stable, and let it massively scale. That’s why I urge all Bitcoin miners of the world to run the new Bitcoin SV full node implementation of BCH and support Satoshi Vision.”
James Belding, the protocol author for the Tokenized team, remarks:
“Our team is honoured to be selected as the CoinGeek contest winner because we all believe in Bitcoin BCH. The BCH network is now fully featured and is the only distributed ledger technology that can scale to serve every person on the planet. Our Tokenized system has been designed to harness the full properties of BCH’s native technology for smart contracts and tokens. I believe it is only a matter of time before nearly every asset is tokenized on the BCH network, and we have created our Tokenized solution to support the global scale and diversity of tokens that can done on BCH.”
To learn more about the Tokenized solution, come to the CoinGeek Week Conference in London on November 27-30. James Belding will be speaking about Tokenized, and the entire Tokenized team will be attending. Also, join the (free) bComm Association.
CoinGeek believes the BCH ecosystem can benefit from even more token solutions that advance the Satoshi Vision. Therefore, CoinGeek will keep its tokenisation contest open with a secondary award of £1 million available. Further details will be posted on CoinGeek.com’s contest page in the coming days.
ABOUT THE TOKENIZED PROJECT
The Tokenized open-source white paper, protocol specification and smart contract code will be released for public preview in November. If you’d like to learn more and receive updates, please visit https://tokenized.cash/ and register your interest. You can also join the Tokenized team on the Tokenized Telegram channel.
Tokenized Team:
James Belding (Twitter: @JamesBelding)
Samuel Georges (Twitter: @daftspunk)
Scott Barr (Twitter: @scottjbarr)
Farid Uddeen
Brendan Lee (Twitter: @coinstorageguru)
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post CoinGeek announces “Tokenized” Project as winner of £5M contest for Bitcoin BCH Token Solution appeared first on Coingeek.
2018年8月30日，来自nChain的吉米·阮（Jimmy Nguyen）与克雷格·怀特博士（Dr. Craig Wright）在泰国曼谷向参加“比特币未来峰会”的矿工（以及比特币现金开发组织）发表了开幕演讲。他们在演讲中阐述了矿工们为什么应当支持Bitcoin SV——旨在实现中本聪最初愿景而推出的比特币现金协议全新完整节点实施。感谢@cryptomic将峰会发言录音整理为文字。
吉米：大家好，我是吉米·阮，nChain的首席执行官。我将与怀特博士共同主持今天的会议。首先，非常感谢各位前来参加会议。我们相聚与此缘于我们对比特币的共同关注与热爱。尽管我们在理念上可能存在一些分歧，针对这些分歧，我们今天有必要展开讨论，但是我认为我仍需要提醒大家，我们今天相聚于此的初衷在于我们对这样一份势将实现中本聪愿景的比特币协议的高度关注，因为这意味着我们可以实现比特币现金（BTC）与生俱来的使命。比特币现金旨在让比特币从BTC回归原有理念，而我们今天的讨论很大程度上将在这个框架下展开。
我希望利用今天上午的时间来谈一谈几个事关全局的议题。我认为，这些议题能说明我们对于这种新兴比特币协议的前景持有何种观点和态度。今天，我还想讲一讲我们为什么坚信这种比特币协议的稳定性好、扩展性强、安全性高、并且所有人均可从中获益。让我来具体说明我们如何得出这一结论。这样讲是因为，最新发布的Bitcoin SV所倡导的理念旨在回归中本聪最初的愿景。
我知道许多人一直想要看代码，为此我们连夜在GitHub存储库中发布了代码的Alpha预览版。大家可以访问GitHub存储库查看代码，但是这个版本尚未经测试。测试会在大约一周后开始。稍后史蒂夫（Steve）将会为大家详细介绍代码测试相关的问题，现在我们继续刚才的话题。此外，在克雷格的主持下，我们还连夜推出了一个矿池“SVpool”，让感兴趣的矿工们可以参加节点部署工作，以实现我们将要介绍的愿景。目前这一项目的预注册已经开始，许多矿工已经完成了预注册，通过这种方式，我们为矿工提供了一个选择的机会，因为我们认为，就规划比特币的路线图来说，让矿工表达自己的见解、拥有选择的权利是非常重要的。
我们认为现在是时候发展壮大以比特币为主题的完整世界和生态系统并实现专业化，这正是我们目前倡导的理念。为什么这样说呢？ 我们想说的是构建一份稳定的协议。中本聪在其早期的一些著作中写道：“比特币的本质是，一旦0.1版本发布，其核心设计即得以固定，并且在今后的整个生命周期中均不会发生改变。”这句话的意思是不是说不能做任何修改？ 当然不是，如果那样就太荒唐了。但是我们的确相信比特币与互联网一样，互联网所依赖的协议从诞生之初至今几乎没有什么变化，在这样的条件下还能让公司在互联网上可靠地开发各种应用程序和网站，因此比特币现金区块链技术也需要发展到同等水平。一份稳定可靠的协议不会每隔3到6个月就会引发开发者之间针对应当开发何种功能产生分歧，这种分歧对于任何人来说都没有好处。这也是为什么我们提倡并且正在采取必要的措施逐步回归到原本的比特币协议，回归之后我们便可将这种协议固定下来，仅在人们提出至关重要的变化时对协议进行修订。但是我们必须为世界各大公司建立稳定的框架，然后在此基础之上发扬壮大。
克雷格：一项提议并不仅仅是指提出一个想法。而是在提出想法的同时，列举出用例、数据、测试结果。此外，这并不是简单的工作，而需付出大量努力。你们还要说服大多数矿工，要实现这个目标，我们需要采用与过去完全不同的方式。
吉米：因此，大家所能想到的最佳方式就是： 我们希望世界各国的公司能在这种区块链技术的基础之上向前发展。大家希望这种区块链技术基础如流沙一般一推即倒，还是如岩石一般坚不可摧？ 大家要牢记这一点的重要原因是，虽然今天到场的许多听众并非国际大型公司的运营者，但是这些大公司在考虑使用比特币现金时，向我们提出的第一个问题便是“比特币现金是否具有强大的扩展性，是否足以支撑我们的大项目？”、“我们什么时候能真正地开始实施？”或者“如果我们不确定区块链是否具有充分的扩展性或者不确定所采用的协议在未来一两年中会发生什么样的变化，我们是否应该投入数百万美元来开始执行这个具体的项目？”。
大公司在做出项目执行决定前会进行此类非常务实的探讨。这就是为什么我们提倡建立一种坚若磐石的稳定协议，让国际大公司对协议可靠性感到放心，而这才是比特币网络未来的发展壮大之道。因此，我们所提倡理念的种种益处均无需对比特币现金协议进行不必要的实验和变更。试想，如果我们将协议固定下来、在此基础上发展壮大，未来会怎样呢？
过去几个月中出现的诸多分歧令人感到遗憾，但是这些分歧是去中心化开发领域必然会出现的结果。就其本身来说，这些分歧无可厚非，但是却影响了比特币网络的发展。我们认为，如果能将这种协议固定下来并让世界各国的商业开发者在固定的协议基础上开发各种应用程序、执行各种项目，势必会产生更好的效果。此外，开发者团队之间也无需每隔半年就要针对具体特性进行没有实质意义的争论。这样的环境实际上可以为大家营造一个更加稳定的生态系统，提供更多确定性，并最终促进比特币网络的发展。身处这样的环境，矿工的收入会有所增加，而在比特币网络上运营的各家公司亦可获得更高的收入。稳定性对于任何商业生态系统的发展均大有益处。
我们还需要开发协议的可扩展性。我知道，在比特币现金开发领域，对于如何实现扩展性仍存在一些争议，而存在不同的观点意见也实属正常，但是我认为，我们必须牢记，在中本聪的早期著作中最初提到比特币时就已经预测这种数字货币具有扩展性——这就是比特币网络能以这种方式在当时的硬件基础上以极低的成本进行扩展并在规模上超越VISA网络的原因。扩展性方面的愿景始终如一。
克雷格：比特币网络的设计初衷自始至终均非家庭用户网络。我不关心人们是否喜欢比特币网络。我也不在乎人们是怎么看待比特币网络的。比特币网络面向的是数据中心。它被设计开发为一种货币。如果仅仅用作一种出于个人爱好而运营的节点，那么永远也不会拥有50亿用户。如果你仅仅出于个人爱好来运营节点，那就自己去制造一种垃圾币，不要阻挡比特币的发展壮大。
吉米：当然，这几点也来自中本聪早期发布的帖子，也就是说设计基础能够维持用户，当节点数量变少时，运行一个节点的压力会变得更大，这种情形会催生出规模巨大的服务器农场。有些人抵制这种想法，认为这本身并没有什么问题。然而，这种设计支撑比特币继续发展、走向专业化。那么从经济学角度来讲这意味着什么？ 在过去一周中，我们在nChain用一些业务分析建立了一些模型，对于现在快速扩展区块大小为何如此重要进行了评估。重要性在于快速扩展会直接影响矿工的经济需求。在两年内，区块奖励将再次分裂成两半，降到6.25个比特币现金（BCH）。因此如今正在挖矿的矿工们在两年后能够拿到的奖励只有今天的一半。要保持目前的盈利能力，就意味着他们必须在两年内以其它方式弥补6.25个币值，这势必通过交易手续费用及更高的交易量方可完成。
克雷格：但是这并不能实现，因为大家手里的比特币数量在减少。像比特币（BTC）这样愚蠢的想法往往会说“币量减少后，价格会翻番”。胡扯！ 实际上并不是币量减少，而是被挖出来的比特币少了。仔细想想，就能发现这种想法是拉高出货的旁氏骗局。投机行为将不复存在。两年后，我们将面临的是币量减半但价格不变的局面。
吉米：我们必须从现在起让比特币网络做好准备迎接即将到来的大规模扩展，这样才能确保矿工在相同的经济利益驱使下继续挖矿，继续保护和发展比特币网络。那么这对于未来意味着什么？ 这意味着矿工们将更加依赖交易手续费和交易量。他们的收入将来自多个渠道，不仅仅来自支付交易（支付交易需要的数据量最少，因此其费用也将最低），而是来自于代币应用，智能合约应用，嵌入数据、文件和op-return指令的应用程序，以及如今与我们接触的各公司所开展的大量相关项目。
我们会将个人交易手续费保持在较低水平，以便人们可以继续使用比特币网络，特别是便于实现比特币作为电子现金的初衷。但是，这意味着交易量必须提高，也就是说我们必须从现在开始着手大幅提高区块规模。
接下来，让我来介绍我们所建立的一些模型 —— 这些模型尚未经过精雕细琢，因此我并不希望大家把它们当做是精确的科学成果。大家可以按照自己的方式来操作我们插入的一些变量。在今天的会议结束时，大家一定会得出明确的结论。我们也建立了模型来分析交易手续费应该保持在什么水平才能弥补未来两年将要失去6.25个比特币现金的区块奖励。我们分析了两年内的三个不同的比特币现金价位。假设比特币的单价为1,000美元，那么你要弥补的区块奖励损失将为6,250美元，当比特币的单价达到5,000美元时，需要弥补的损失将会达到31,250美元，而当币值达到10,000美元时，需要弥补的损失将会达到62,500美元。
我们对各种交易类型分别进行了分析，鉴于一个区块中不可能仅使用支付交易，因此我们的分析是基于一个区块中出现多种交易类型的假设条件。我们最初评估的交易类型是支付交易，支付交易的字节非常简短，只有225个字节，相比之下，智能合约交易大约为1,000个字节，而代币则为1,500个字节。未来我们还会进行更多分析，而这仅仅是我们评估工作的开端。
我们分析了三种可能出现的交易手续费费率。在此，我们均采用每字节的美元价格（而非聪）作为计量单位。按照这种想法，比特币网络的发展演变决定了交易手续费处于低、中、高哪一水平。在这个基础上进行建模分析时，交易手续费会发生什么样的变化？ 当然，费用的多少取决于交易的规模。
我们在交易手续费为0.00009美元（即每字节只需要一美分的一小部分）的低费率水平基础上建立了模型，分析结果显示，支付交易的手续费用处于低费率时（仅为本模型分析之目的，实际上我们认为费率水平仍然居高，交易手续费应该更低），可能为2美分，智能合约交易可能为9美分，而代币交易可能为13美分。
我们对中等和高费率也进行了建模分析。此外，我们认为任何给定区块均会保存这些交易类型的不同部分——因此，我们没有办法作出准确预测，只能对平均水平作出评估。实际上，通过这种方式得出的费率会比我们认为的理想费率要高，但是这也意味着，即便我们提高了个人交易手续费，仍需扩大区块规模。接下来，我们针对“要填充一个区块，收取足够的交易手续费来弥补区块奖励的损失，需要的总交易量是多少？”这一问题做了分析评估。
如果区块容量完全由支付交易（字节数最少的交易类型）填充，那么你需要完成大量的支付交易。你大约需要完成160万笔个人交易才能使手续费达到5,000美元的中等币值水平。如果我们将各种交易类型组合起来，假设其中40%为支付交易、30%为智能合约交易、30%为代币交易，所需要完成交易量则会大幅减少，这是因为有些交易类型的字节数较多。每个区块的总交易量大约为80万笔。这一情况最终会对区块规模产生什么影响呢？ 这就解释了为何我们认为现在亟需开始着手扩展区块规模。
在低交易费场景下，我们计算了“完成这些交易并产生6.25个比特币现金（BCH）价值所需要的最小区块容量是多少？”就最小容量来说，在比特币现金单价为1,000美元时（假设费率保持在较低水平），你需要67.1MB的容量，在单价达到5,000美元时，需要335MB的容量，而在单价达到10,000美元时，则需要670.6MB的容量。但是这一分析是基于整个区块均被填满的假设条件下做出的，而在实际情况下，没人会取用区块100%填满的比特币网络。
这仅仅是通过这些交易弥补区块奖励所需要的最低容量。在克雷格看来，理想情况下网络的区块上限应当（至少）为每日平均交易量的50倍，这样一来才能确保达吞吐量达到实现增长的水平。接下来，我们计算了“在2%的区块容量利用率下，最大区块容量是多少？”然而，如果大家希望采用不同的分析方法，可以选择10%的区块容量利用率，但是实际上我们并不想做这样的分析。如果大家想要进行较为保守的分析，可以采用10%的利用率来分析。在低手续费场景下，分析结果显示我们需要的最大区块容量在两年后将达到3.3GB、16GB、甚至32GB。如果交易手续费持续上涨，场景则会发生变化——我们并不需要大容量区块，因为这会导致交易手续费的进一步上涨。
克雷格：当然还存在一些其他问题。如果交易手续费用较高，那么我们在与其他行业以及类似技术的竞争过程中就失去了明显优势，也就无法实现足够多的交易量。因此除非交易手续费保持在较低水平，也就是说提供容量更大的区块，否则我们就会面临失败。
吉米：但即使在较高交易手续费的场景下，我们仍然需要讨论如何提供容量相对较大的区块。在这种场景下，最大容量可达1.3GB、6.5GB或13 GB，甚至连最低容量也将达到894MB、4GB或8GB。而这是两年之后的情形。
如果我们已经面临或者将要面临这种情形——大家可以按我的变量设置来查看结果，或者使用你们认为更加合理的数字来进行分析，但是会得出同样的分析结论。我们需要容量更大的区块来支持必要的交易量和规模，从而确保矿工们继续获得相同的收入，用以弥补区块回报减半的损失。而这在两年之内将会实现。
如果在未来两年内我们就必需要支持接近4GB或16GB的容量，我们需要立即采取行动，而不能在一年之后再开始行动。我们必须现在就要开始，因为这项工作的开展将起到至关重要的作用，如果没有开展，那么两年后，在挖矿利润下降的情况下，矿工无法达到所需交易量与手续费，进而无法产生实际收入，而这最终会威胁到整个比特币网络的生存与安全。
克雷格：除此之外，人们已经开始展望未来、未雨绸缪。现在还有一些其他选择。他们可以转而投入比特币现金的怀抱，但在此之前，他们需要确定两年后比特币现金的发展水平能让他们切实地开始进行相关交易，而在这一点上问题确实存在： 正规组织实际上需要两到三年的时间来开发应用程序。若你只用三周时间就快速开发出了一个应用程序，大家都会认为那是一堆垃圾。因此大家不会这么做。正规组织的程序开发要投入多年时间。我在澳大利亚股票交易所工作时，NIPA网络的开发工作就耗时五年之久。工作人员用了五年的时间来规划这一网络。那就是一家真正规范的股票交易所。SBI（印度国家银行）熟悉这一领域，但即便在熟悉的领域，他们也花了两年的时间来规划。你们不可能在投入了几百万美元之后，才开始考虑“这没什么，再过两年协议应该没问题了。” 你们需要确保这个协议会贯彻始终、保持不变，在未来6年、8年、甚至10年以后仍然不会有任何变化，否则你们一定不会轻易作出投资。
吉米：因此我们呼吁提高协议的扩展性并不是武断之举。那并不是因为克雷格和我，或者nChain团队，无所事事之余瞎捉摸着说到“我们就是需要128MB”或者“不管你能想到多大的容量，我们都要。”我们发起倡议是出于最根本的需求，因为当前从经济角度上来看，挖矿网络以及矿工们的收入必须现在就开始不断扩展。我们发起倡议的另一个原因是，我们与大公司之间的交流推动了这项工作，他们向我们询问“嗨，你们能帮我们想一想如何在比特币现金区块链上部署‘空白区块’吗？”它可以是一项不动产物权登记服务、一种订立智能合约的新方法、或者一家去中心化股票交易所。这些公司和我们讨论过各类形形色色的项目，但是他们却始终不愿开始进行开发，而原因就在于网络容量不够发达，这需要（就像克雷格所说）有些公司花费至少一年、有时两年时间来搭建一个复杂的项目，而这还仅仅是在稳定的互联网环境下运行的项目。相比之下，他们不愿开始着手在比特币现金网络上进行开发，因此，我们需要作为一个整体来说服他们，告诉他们这种协议具有稳定性并且能够进行大规模扩展，否则，相关的开发根本不可能发生。
我们上周就曾经与一家公司讨论过它旗下一家借助区块链技术提供不动产物权注册服务的合资公司。他们喜欢用比特币现金区块链技术，但是他们想要记录的信息不仅仅包括所有权，还包括建筑物或土地的3D图像信息，而这会产生巨量数据（他们愿意为此支付高额奖励与交易手续费），然而他们在现有的网络环境下根本不会考虑用比特币现金来实现这一需求。也许大家认为这并不重要，但这是未来交易量、交易手续费和矿工奖金的来源。
克雷格：光是那家集团愿意投入的资金就已经足够进行这项工作，而且在数据成本上还可以收取年金。所谓的年金是指终身付费。可以说前期付款额能买下人类出现以来生产的所有硬盘。他们愿意支付前期费用加上溢价，来建立一个分布式网络，支持1,000个不同的矿工，这超出了我们现在的规模。我是指在矿池中的矿工。人们愿意支付如此巨款来打造这样一个网络。
吉米：因此，我们鼓励向这个方向发展，这个方向可以确保网络的生存与成长。而且，我们不能单纯地把比特币现金局限在原有的（在我们看来也是最主要的）目标，仅作为一种电子现金。挖矿区块奖励即将腰斩的趋势并不足以支持整个网络的发展，而且这样一来，更不会吸引到大公司来将它打造成我们想要的样子——未来的全球公共账本。就像我们都在同一个公共互联网上生活、工作一样，我们真的相信并且要尝试开始着手向加密与区块链的世界发展，并且在比特币现金区块链这个唯一的公共账本上进行运营。
克雷格：在与世界黄金协会等组织展开的讨论中，他们的清算数据——不是交易数据——将会超过GB级区块。而且这仅仅指每日清算数据。
吉米：那么现在的问题在于“毫无疑问，各个开发组织之间存在理念上的分歧，那么我们在区块规模方面应该采取何种举措？”当我们宣布发起Bitcoin SV项目时，我们相信默认的区块规模应当是128 MB。现在也许你能明白为什么这并不是一个武断的决定。这是我们认为两年后取得发展进步需要要经历的道路。
然而，我们可以完全接受不设任何上限的、由矿工自行设置的想法，因为我们认为最终矿工应当负责指引比特币开发的未来道路，而不仅仅是依靠开发组织。毫无疑问——他们是维持网络的首要用户，并且这种做法可以让他们根据市场需求、市场用量、以及自身对交易类型与挖矿能力的需求进行配置。
因此我们完全可以接受这两种截然不同的方式，我认为很多人会愿意采用矿工自行设置的方式。Bitcoin ABC在调试设置环境下允许自行配置最大区块规模，但是也许很多矿工并没有注意到这一点。我们通过Bitcoin SV想要实现的目标实际上就是对这种功能进行迁移并让其变得更加明显。
这实际上类似于Bitcoin Unlimited最新提出的共识方式。因此，我认为矿工自行设置的方式实际上与不同开发组织普遍采取的方式具有一致性。所以，在SV中，史蒂夫会将这种设置排列在明显位置，以方便大家使用。他稍后会对此进行详细介绍。
最后，让我们来谈一谈安全。大家都认为，比特币现金网络应尽可能变得更加安全，这一点非常重要——我想对此谁都不会有所异议。我们也同意，不能武断地开始扩展，让区块越来越大，我们在扩展的同时需要保证安全。史蒂夫和安迪会向大家详细介绍这方面的内容，我们正在启动我们自己的两个千兆区块测试网络——实际上一共三个，两个自有网络，一个由外部运营，从而来继续进行Bitcoin Unlimited等公司已经启动的测试。随着工作的不断推进，我们将会发布相关数据。
史蒂夫将负责改进代码，我们在硬件加速方面还可以进行一些开发，这将有助于加强安全性。我们刚与外部安全公司商定进行Bitcoin SV代码的审计工作，我们会继续与这家公司合作并使用公共代码漏洞报告奖励程序来执行主要软件开发公司所做的工作，正如微软和谷歌会在软件上采取的步骤。他们会逐步推动这一过程的专业化。这并没有什么问题。这样做不仅没有什么问题，而且正是开发领域需要进步的方向。
史蒂夫正计划着和我们的团队进行安全升级：我们将使用Gigablock Testnet来进行压力测试。随后，我们会向挖矿领域提供数据，使矿工们能自行决定区块规模是否安全。我们不想每隔6个月就告诉他们“目前来看区块应该这么大”。毫无疑问，我们可以提供数据，给出建议，然后由矿工来决定怎么做，权衡风险与回报，做出合理的决定，因为我们想要赋予他们自行决定的权利。
克雷格：这些事项不应当由开发者来决定。这应当是一次竞争性选择。矿工应当力争取得最好的结果。关键在于，我们不愿意支持落后的矿工。我们想让最出色的矿工来运营这个网络并实现盈利。如果这意味着淘汰掉表现最差的20%矿工，那也同样意味着表现出色的矿工能挣到更多的利润。如果能够挣得更多利润，就能吸引行业中更加出色的人才加入。这就是资本主义的运作方式。这也是自由市场的运作方式，没有任何技术统治论者能左右自由市场的发展。
吉米：我们原本打算花些时间来介绍协议修改带来的一些问题，但是我会把这个时间留到稍后的技术特性讨论来回答大家的问题。最后，我想对我们所提倡的这种方式所具备的种种优势进行一个总结。我们认为，这种方式并非与其他团队的方式完全不相容。
我想明确一点，我们并不希望比特币现金出现分裂。
我们不想分裂今天在座各位长久以来的工作成果，因为在座许多人付出了辛勤劳动并创造了比特币现金的今天，我们对此万分感激。我们认为，过去几个月中进行的讨论所揭示的理念分歧在于，我们应当向哪个方向发展以及谁应当主导路线图。我们认为应当快速进行扩展——大幅扩展，但是前提是要保证稳定并且锁定协议，在这一基础上，未来开发组织之间才不会产生无谓的分歧。我们相信矿工应当推动相关的决定，我们应当给予他们做出决策的权利。
克雷格：比特币并不是要让每个人运行自己的结点。这并非去中心化长久以来的宗旨。它还是稳定的资金。这就回到了最初的内容，比特币与生俱来最为重要的就是能提供稳定的资金。它拥有分布式系统，任何只有一个参与者的系统都有可能被关闭、修改，这样的系统是不稳定的。只有在优秀矿工之间进行充分竞争，我们才能获得最稳定的资金来源。
吉米：最后，让我来总结一下我们所提倡的方式所具有的种种优势——我们想要快速、安全地扩展，为什么提出这样的需求：这并不是因为克雷格早晨醒来后，突然想到“哦，我们想要规模更大的区块。”而是因为系统中与生俱来的经济因素促使着我们朝着这个方向去发展，而且需要立即开始着手开展。我们希望锁定原始的比特币协议，以便让企业可以通过可靠的方式在稳定的基础上构建业务。通过质量保证和安全审计使整个过程专业化。推动零配置安全机制。
我们希望可以打造出一种可以实现全球快速导入的渠道，这不仅仅是为了支付交易，而且还为了便于大公司参与进行，只有这样才能带来对矿工至关重要的收入。矿工只有在保持盈利、挣钱的基础上，才会在两年后继续挖矿，而我们提倡的方式会为他们带来高溢价服务，例如数据、不动产物权注册服务等机会，由于需要的数据容量越来越多，他们的收入也会随之增加。
最后，我们希望矿工拥有选择和表达看法的权利，让他们来推动这项事业向前发展，让开发组织实现他们最初的目标——回归到比特币的最初愿景。但是，我们要以前所未有的方式给比特币更多的空间来发展、来呼吸，然后了解未来的发展趋势。如果在几年后，人们提出希望做出任何变化，我们可以对此进行仔细考量，但并非目前的每六个月就做一次这样的尝试。
克雷格：10年前曾有这样一句话。“再过20年，我们要么拥有巨大无比的交易量，要么一无所有。”我们已经走过了20年的一半。如果我们在接下来几年中不去扩展，那么我们已然接近终点。事情就是这么简单。你们所有的投资都会打水漂。我们要么扩展，要么还不如什么也不做等待终点的到来。
吉米：最后，让我再次强调这一点。我们需要为国际企业创造坚实的、可大幅扩展的基础，便于他们随后在此基础之上继续添砖加瓦。否则，他们是不会在一推即倒的流沙上创建任何东西的。所以在接下来的几个小时、几天的讨论中，请将这一点牢记在心。感谢各位对比特币的热情与支持。我们拥有共同的目标，我想我们一定不能忘记这一点。
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post Bitcoin SV：秉承中本聪愿景的比特币现金协议实现 appeared first on Coingeek.
On a recent trip to Wales with the company’s CEO, Jimmy Nguyen, Dr. Craig Wright took the stage to provide the audience with the science behind the importance of blockchains and, in particular, how Bitcoin BCH is positioned to be a leader in the adaptive world of global economics. His presentation delivers an invaluable lesson on why now, not three years into the future, is the time to push the industry forward.
As the cryptocurrency expert and Chief Scientist for nChain explained, “[Bitcoin BCH] is not just money…it is the foundation for everything that we see. [Bitcoin BCH] was always the future—some want to stop this; it cannot be stopped. It’s a better technology—we’re going to stop it where it is and let businesses grow.”
He pointed out what Bitcoin BCH enthusiasts, and a growing number of merchants, have already come to realize. Bitcoin BCH is the leading blockchain for new commerce and technology. It is the only blockchain that continues development following the original design of cryptocurrency and this has facilitated greater acceptance of the Bitcoin BCH cryptocurrency as a legitimate alternative to fiat by merchants.
Of course, as Wright mentions in the seminar, cryptocurrency isn’t the solution to all of the world’s problems. However, it can certainly solve a big one – the need to rely on intermediaries to manage and administer monetary transactions, giving control back to the currency holder to manage their funds. Ultimately, Bitcoin BCH is a viable and convertible virtual currency.
Wright indicates the importance of commercialization to see blockchains succeed. Just like with the Internet, blockchains can only thrive if they’re commercialized. To accomplish this, they must provide something businesses and entrepreneurs can use. They must be stable so that business owners can have the confidence to know that any product or service they implement on the blockchain will still be valid five or ten years into the future.
This stability won’t come automatically. It has to be forced by the blockchain. This means that the changing policies and protocols every few months, as attempted by some developers, only leads to degradation of confidence and doesn’t serve the ultimate goal of Bitcoin BCH. Only through stability will greater acceptance be achieved, which will lead to even more security and adoption.
Some blockchain developers only want to develop – it’s in their nature to want to tweak and change. However, this approach is counterproductive to the future of the blockchain. This is one of the main reasons that nChain has worked to help produce the Bitcoin SV full-node implementation of Bitcoin BCH. It will help to ensure that change can’t occur “for change’s sake” and lead to better stability and reliability.
Bitcoin SV will also ensure that there is more of a focus on consensus approval for innovation of the blockchain, and less control by those that would have the network developed based on their whims. As Wright aptly puts it, “[Bitcoin BCH] is not a social network.”
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post Dr. Craig Wright leads seminar on where cryptocurrency is heading appeared first on Coingeek.
Jimmy Nguyen, the affable CEO of nChain, has been making his rounds to promote Bitcoin BCH and how the blockchain is changing the scope of cryptocurrency. He recently completed a couple of discussions in front of cryptocurrency enthusiasts where he went into great detail about how Bitcoin BCH is poised to be the ultimate blockchain and how it will revolutionize how the cryptocurrency ecosystem is viewed.
One of the conversations led by Nguyen was to a group of individuals in Wales. The seminar was uploaded to YouTube only a few days ago and, as usual, his effervescent personality and in-depth knowledge captivated the audience. He provided a significant amount of support for why cryptocurrency and blockchains are so crucial to a changing world and additionally needs to happen for this evolutionary cycle to continue.
Providing an overview of what a blockchain is, Nguyen broke down the fundamentals of the blockchain, pointing out that the technology can completely alter how records are kept and how it can ultimately eliminate the need to rely on intermediaries. This is an important feature, as the intermediaries, such as banks or information processing houses, slow down transactions and result in higher costs.
Nguyen also touched upon the need to create a network that is much more scalable than what is seen now. This will not only lead to faster transaction times but a blockchain with a greater foundation, such as the proposed 128MB block size for Bitcoin BCH, will give businesses the confidence they need to want to innovate on that particular blockchain. This leads to greater stability and usability of the particular blockchain.
In his second seminar, which is also available on YouTube, Nguyen targeted Bitcoin SV, a new full-node implementation of the Bitcoin BCH protocol for miners. The idea behind the implementation, as Nguyen points out, is to create a network that is more stable, more secure and more scalable. It’s an opportunity to return to the original vision of cryptocurrency offered by Satoshi Nakamoto, and to stop viewing the blockchain as a playground for developers.
As Nguyen so eloquently puts it, “It’s time for Bitcoin to grow up.” It’s time to introduce a network that is more solid and gives the world a chance to see what cryptocurrency was really designed to be – a valuable peer-to-peer digital currency.
Following Satoshi’s original design for the cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Core (BTC) developers never gave cryptocurrency a chance to mature as it had originally been intended. This was the impetus for Bitcoin BCH, to continue along the same path and definition of cryptocurrency.
Nguyen rightfully asserts that cryptocurrency needs to be constructed on solid block, not on moving sand. When developers want to introduce changes (most of which do not enhance the network) every few months, the blockchain can never evolve appropriately and cannot build the foundation that it needs. Only through projects such as Bitcoin SV can provide the necessary stability to take Bitcoin BCH into the future be achieved.
Note: Tokens on the Bitcoin Core (segwit) Chain are Referred to as BTC coins. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is today the only Bitcoin implementation that follows Satoshi Nakamoto’s original whitepaper for Peer to Peer Electronic Cash. Bitcoin BCH is the only major public blockchain that maintains the original vision for Bitcoin as fast, frictionless, electronic cash.
The post Jimmy Nguyen of nChain is busy working his magic to promote Bitcoin BCH appeared first on Coingeek.
