Srp 25

Segwit Activated: How it Works & What’s Next for Bitcoin

· August 25, 2017 · 4:00 am

Segregated Witness, or Segwit, has finally been activated by a super majority of the current hashpower on the Bitcoin network. Segwit fixes many bugs currently in the protocol, and allows for some scaling using an effective blocksize increase.


Almost two years of debate

In December of 2015, the source code for Segregated Witness (Segwit) was released. It was meant as a fix for the ever-problematic transaction malleability bug, which allowed for someone to change one or two characters of a transaction’s ID before it was cemented into the blockchain. Along with that, it provided a method of scaling Bitcoin. Doing away with the concept of a blocksize, a new metric was made called blockweight.

For years the software was not added to the Bitcoin protocol as it never garnered the necessary 95% of the hashpower needed to activate. It was to be implemented though means of a softfork, which meant it would comply with all currently consensus rules and be backwards compatible with those running old software and did not wish to upgrade.

Whether you believe that Segwit was a direct result of the grassroot approach of BIP148 forced miners to finally activate it after all this time, or the New York Agreement was the reason everyone came together to signal for Segwit, it is finally here.

A second BIP was released weeks ago to lower the activation threshold to 80% of the hashpower, but even with the lowered bar Segwit still achieved around 97% signaling and locked in during the beginning of August.

After the official lock-in period, the network allowed for two weeks to provide grade period of sorts for people to upgrade their software to work with Segwit.

How Segwit Works

There has been a ton of misinformation about Segwit, so this article will hopefully clear some things up of how it actually works. As stated earlier the whole idea of a blocksize has been gotten rid of. Instead, the network will now use blockweight.

There’s two types of data that are contained in a transaction. Firstly, there is actual transaction data, such as the address the coins are being sent to. Then there is the witness data, which is all the information that is only needed when the transaction is confirmed, and then that data is essentially never used again.

Segwit provides a “discount” to the witness data, and once committed to the blockchain it gets pruned. These 1000 1KB transactions would obviously fill the current blocksize of 1MB, but remember blocksize isn’t even a metric any more. It’s been replaced by blockweight, the new limit of which will be set at 4,000,000 “units.”

The way the new unit system works is the number of units in a transaction is simply the number of bytes of transaction data multiplied by four. Witness data is, as said before, discounted. The bytes of the witness data are essentially a direct translation to units at a 1:1 rate.

So, for example, let’s say there’s 1000 transactions in the mempool, all at 1KB of data. Now let’s say in each of the transactions, 400 bytes is witness data and the other 600 bytes is transaction data. The 600 bytes for transaction data is now worth 2,400 units, while the witness data is now worth 400 units giving the whole transaction a weight of 2,800 units. All of these transactions together will only take up 2,800,000 of the 4,000,000 units, leaving room for more transactions.

Once the transaction is confirmed by the network, the not needed witness data will be pruned off the blockchain, to save storage space and decrease bandwidth use.

How Do I Actually Use SegWit?

For those of you expecting an immediate sign that Segwit is helping everything, I’m sorry to let you down. In reality, it could be weeks or even months before Segwit really starts to have widespread adoption.

Segwit transactions can only be sent from Segwit addresses. So, every single address that currently contains coins would have to send them to a Segwit address before we see the full effect of the upgrade. And even then, there could be a decent chunk of users who still don’t trust Segwit and don’t want to use it. Which is perfectly fine, that’s the point of a softfork. It doesn’t force users who don’t agree to it to upgrade to it.

For you to use segwit and send segwit transactions, you’ll need to send your coins to wallet that generates Segwit addresses. Otherwise, it will just be a normal transaction.

Moving forward, Segwit was an important setup to the upgrading and scaling of the Bitcoin network, which has been woefully overloaded in the past several months. Segwit opens the door to better implementation of the lightning network, which can allow for transactions to be sent off chain for pennies.

Coming in November, the second half of the New York Agreement is set to take place calling for a doubling of the blockweight to even further scale the network though means of a hardfork.

Will you be using segwit from here on in? How do you think this will effect the network? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Segwit.co

Show comments

Share
Čvc 17

The Biggest Mining Pool is Now Signaling to Keep Bitcoin Whole

· July 17, 2017 · 11:00 am

BIP91 blocks have been successfully mined by BiXin and Antpool helping to allay fears that Bitcoin could split in the face of incompatibility between rival Segwit2x and BIP148 implementations.


BIP91 (or Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 91) is the work of software engineer James Hilliard, it addresses incompatibilities between the competing SegWit2x and BIP148 protocols. Both bring SegWit to Bitcoin, except that SegWit2x refuses communication with BIP148, which would effectively cause Bitcoin to split in two.

What’s BIP91?

BIP91 seeks to address this problem by enabling SegWit2x and BIP148 to communicate. However, in order for BIP91 to be successful it must also be adopted by a significant number of mining pools in order to successfully activate. Activation of any of these SegWit improvements to Bitcoin need to gain a significant proportion of the Bitcoin network hashpower (80%) to be generated by miners and mining pools.

Rival Improvements

SegWit2x was agreed by Bitcoin companies and large miners, whereas BIP148 came from an independent groundswell of Bitcoin users and developers. The two rival protocols looked set on forking Bitcoin until BIP91 joined the fray.

SegWit2x has been identified by Luke-Jr, amongst others, as essentially a power grab by large Bitcoin mining operations, primarily Bitmain, allowing them potential control of the whole Bitcoin network.

“By promoting BIP91 and Segwit2x as an alternative to BIP148, what miners are really doing is another power grab to try to take back their veto, which has no purpose other than to be used by Bitmain to block the whole thing at the last minute…,” warns Luke-Jr.

If too little of the economy has upgraded to BIP148 in time for August, it gives Bitmain the opportunity to perform a chain split attack, and fool outdated nodes into following their invalid chain, possibly becoming financially dependent on it before realizing the attack has occurred.

Mining Pools Rally to the Cause

With more pools now coming forward and signaling BIP91 it seems that the community and mining pools are realizing that action is needed to prevent any potentially catastrophic Bitcoin splits and forcing users to take matters into their own hands.

A coordinated effort like this is a rare thing to see, especially considering there is no central figure to oversee such efforts and negotiate with mining pools for adoption. With time also of the essence pools are being mobilized and standing up to the potential vested interests of SegWit2x.

BIP91 should reduce the possibility of a Bitcoin split, which most rational Bitcoin users, miners and operators will agree is a good thing.

Will this BIP91 announcement reassure Bitcoin Investors and users ahead of the August 1st segwit activation date? Let us know in the comments below.


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Twitter, xbt.eu

Show comments

Share
Kvě 30

UASF Continues to Gain Support as ‘Secret’ SegWit2x Roadmap Revealed

· May 30, 2017 · 10:30 am

Though a Bitcoin scaling agreement was reached at the recent Consensus conference in New York, many companies are increasingly supporting a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF)  as a means to activate SegWit.


UASF Still on the Table

Although reports have stated that the Bitcoin scaling debate may be coming to an end due to what has been known as the ‘Barry Silbert Agreement,’ recent developments indicate that it may still be far from over, leaving other options like the User Activated Soft Fork (UASF), a proposal that has been slowly gaining traction among Bitcoin businesses.

The given agreement dubbed “SegWit2x” is a compromise by several companies in the blockchain space that represent roughly 83% of the global hash rate to activate the SegWit proposal at an 80% threshold and to activate a 2MB hard fork within six months.

Meanwhile, prominent Bitcoin community member “WhalePanda”  tweeted out the details of the SegWit2x proposal today. The roadmap sets only a month for testing. Furthermore, it proposes to get the nodes up and running as well as signaling by July 21st, 2017.

Interestingly, this falls before the BIP 148 August 1st activation date.

Given its short timeframe, Bitcoin Core proponents say that the given approach is not enough to properly implement a hard fork. Due to its risky nature, it would require a second SegWit BIP to be introduced before the current one expires.

This means that the UASF may be the only way to realistically implement SegWit. Although the proposal is viewed by some as somewhat “intrusive” or even dangerous, 27 companies have shown support for it, a number that has more than doubled since the last time we talked about this subject.

Who Supports UASF?

Since the last time we visited this subject, 15 companies have signaled their support for the UASF proposal, including:

  • Abra;
  • Bitcoin Embassy;
  • Bitcoin India;
  • Bitfury;
  • Bitrefill;
  • Electrum;
  • Mycelium and others.

Currently seven companies are also opposing the UASF: Bitpay, Bitillions, BTCPOP, CoinATMRadar, F2Pool, MrCoin, and OXT. Meanwhile, both the Ledger and Trezor hardware wallet manufacturers are currently ready for the UASF BIP 148 update.

While most companies are in favor of the miner activated SegWit, the same level of support is not reflected with the UASF proposal. Some companies are still waiting for a less intrusive method of activating SegWit. ShapeShift, for example, has publically stated that it will wait for the Barry Silbert agreement to materialize. If it doesn’t, then ShapeShift will run a BIP 148 UASF node.

The reason why companies are still waiting for other solutions can be found in the nature of the User Activated Soft Fork, which poses some potential dangers for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

What is UASF & What Are the Risks?

A User Activated Soft Fork is a soft fork in which the users or nodes create a penalty for miners that do not signal the intended soft fork. This is done through a modified version of a Bitcoin Client, which gives a block height limit for miners to start signaling SegWit.

Once this block height is reached,  nodes that are running the UASF client will stop accepting blocks that don’t support SegWit. Since nodes are the ones that verify transactions, if a majority of nodes is running a UASF client, then blocks that don’t signal SegWit will be considered invalid by the majority of nodes, while SegWit blocks will be accepted by every node, old and new.

Though this system seems like a sure way to activate SegWit, it sill poses some dangers for miners that continue to mine non-SegWit blocks and for nodes that are not running the UASF client. If a majority of miners decide not to support SegWit, there will be a chain split and old nodes that are not running UASF will follow the chain with the most miners.

This would mean that the Bitcoin blockchain would be split into two chains, one with and the other one without SegWit. The blockchain in which SegWit would be active would be the one with the least hash power, a concerning factor for Bitcoin’s security.

Do you think SegWit can be activated without the UASF proposal? Can the SegWit + 2mb Hard fork Bitcoin Scaling Agreement get it done? Share your thoughts on the comment section.


Images courtesy of Twitter, Shutterstock

Show comments

Share
Kvě 01

Adam Back: Blockstream ‘Has No Patents Related To SegWit’

· May 1, 2017 · 12:00 pm

Blockstream CEO Adam Back has refuted claims by Swedish Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge that the company “has patents in SegWit.”


 Pirate Party’s Falkvinge: Blockstream SegWit Support Driven By Patents

In a Twitter response Monday, Back stated Blockstream “does not have any patents, patent applications, provisional patent applications, or anything similar, related to segwit.”

Falkvinge, who is a staunch supporter of bigger blocks proposed by rival scaling solution campaigners Bitcoin Unlimited, had earlier Monday released a dedicated post on his website arguing Blockstream’s SegWit support was for its own interests.

“Based on Blockstream’s behavior in the Bitcoin community, I have become absolutely certain that Segwit contains patents that Blockstream and/or their owners have planned to use offensively,” he wrote.

Falkvinge Accuses Blockstream Of ‘Goalpost Moving’

The post accuses Blockstream of “classic goalpost moving” and employing behavior that “only makes sense” under a patent battle.

Falkvinge continues:

…Based on Blockstream’s behavior, I can say with dead certainty that I’ve seen this exact behavior many times in the past, and it’s always when somebody has a dual set of reasons – one for presentation and palate and another that drives the actual course of action.

Back’s Twitter retort appears to be lifted from previous comments on Reddit left by core developer Greg Maxwell.Maxwell

“As is the case for other major protocol features, the Bitcoin developers worked carefully to not create patent complications. Segwit was a large-scale collaboration across the community, which included people who work for Blockstream among its many contributors,” he continued.

Moreover, because the public disclosure of segwit was more than a year ago, we could not apply for patents now.

Maxwell reiterated that Falkvinge had previously made similar allegations, which he had addressed separately.

“In short, Rick Falkvinge’s allegations are entirely without merit and are supported by nothing more than pure speculation which had already been debunked,” he concluded.

A Clash Of Ideals?

Falkvinge meanwhile has remained bullish on Bitcoin publicly, telling RT in February he expected Bitcoin could take over up to 10% of the foreign exchange market.

In his post, however, a clear distinction is drawn between the classic Bitcoin ethos and that of Blockstream.

The owners of Blockstream are the classic financial institutions […] that have everything to lose from cryptocurrency gaining ground,” he wrote.

The conclusion is unescapable (sic) here: Blockstream’s constant goalpost shifting has had the underlying goal to have Blockstream’s owners effectively own bitcoin through patent encumbrance.

What do you think about Rick Falkvinge’s claims about Blockstream? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Twitter

Show comments

Share
Dub 25

Charlie Shrem: ‘It’s Not About The Technology Anymore, It’s About Power’

· April 25, 2017 · 9:00 am

Bitcoin entrepreneur Charlie Shrem shared his views on the scaling debate, stating that “it’s not about technology anymore, it’s about power.”


Shrem: ‘It’s About Power’

Charlie Shrem, Bitcoin entrepreneur and co-founder of Intellysis, was present in today’s episode of the  Double Down show, dubbed “Does Block Size Matter?” with the usual hosts Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert.

Hard Fork Wars

During the show, Shrem expressed his thoughts regarding the current state of the scaling debate or as Herbert called it, “the Great Blocksize War of 2017.”

Shrem stated:

In reality, it’s not a technical argument anymore. Everyone on both sides of the table say that SegWit is the best technology that we have.

According to Shrem, the scaling debate is no longer about the most viable technology or solution that can be used to scale Bitcoin. Instead, the scaling debate has become a power struggle between two development teams, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Core.

“The other side of the debate, which is Bitcoin Unlimited, they agree that SegWit is a great technology,” he continued. “But to them it’s not about technology anymore, it’s about power.”

Shrem went on to say:

They want to remove [Bitcoin Core’s] ability to work on Bitcoin and instead have a closed-membership small group of four to five developers, who they think are the best for the job, run Bitcoin going forward.

A Test for Bitcoin

However, there is a silver lining in this development, which Shrem considers it as an “extremely bullish situation for Bitcoin.” The current block size “drama” is showcasing Bitcoin’s ability to resist a malicious attack on the network.

He noted:

Here you have a group of bad actors who are trying to overtake the Bitcoin network and essentially fork all of bitcoin and force all Bitcoin users to be able to use their developers and their codebase and their everything and it’s not a group of miners that’s preventing this.

Shrem sees the current hash power signaling as a “glorified poll” when it comes to hard fork given that nodes are the ones that validate blocks and they can discard the ones from the hard-forked chain at will, meaning that miners don’t have nearly as much power as they think they do.

This can be observed the UASF proposal, which would bypass the miners completely and leave it up to the nodes to force SegWit into activation.

However, it may not come down to a UASF, as mining pools like F2Pool are beginning to move to SegWit driven by demand from individual users that contribute hashrate to the pool.

Champagne Problem

Not all is gloomy for Bitcoin, however. Amidst all the tension and drama, one must also look at the bright side, which is the reason we’re having this heated debate at all: Bitcoin is growing at an exponential rate.

This is, as Shrem puts it, a “champagne problem,” one that gives us as much to celebrate as it gives us to fight about. 

Bitcoin 2016

“It’s a good problem to have. Bitcoin has grown really quickly. We never expected this to happen so quickly, to be honest. We’re getting towards what they call a ‘champagne problem,’ how do you scale?” he said.

This means that not only is Bitcoin working as intended, but there is also an urgent need for such a currency in the world. Now, it’s only a matter of making sure that Bitcoin can become that currency and still maintain its decentralized and immutable characteristics.

Shrem concluded:

There has always been research and conversations on scaling over the past three years but, to be honest, we didn’t think we’d see this exponential growth in Bitcoin and now it’s time to have that conversation.

Do you agree? Is the scaling debate actually about power and control? Share below!


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, alchetron.com, coin.dance

Show comments

Share
Dub 14

Core Dev Maxwell: UASF ‘Does Not Measure Up To Standard’

· April 14, 2017 · 9:00 am

Bitcoin core developer Greg Maxwell has newly outlined why he “does not support” a user-activated soft fork (UASF) as it figures in BIP 148.


Maxwell: UASF ‘Guarantees Disruption’

In a circular to the Core mailing list Friday, Maxwell said that although he is not strictly against a soft fork, its incarnation in BIP 148’s UASF does not “really measure up to the standard set by segwit itself.”

The debate over whether to galvanize the entire Bitcoin ecosystem into Segwit activation via a UASF has gained considerable traction over the last month.

Proponents say it is the quickest way to move Bitcoin on from its current stalemate, yet detractors highlight its disruptive nature as a reason for caution. If a UASF occurred, for example, non-supportive miners would find their blocks invalid after the deadline, and would not receive rewards for their work.

Maxwell too notes that this “disruption” is a key difference between a UASF and segwit activation via miners.

“The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level of disruption,” he continued. “Segwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could continue operating _completely_ [sic] without interruption after segwit activates.”

Time Still Not Of The Essence

Despite the increasingly slow and expensive nature of the Bitcoin network, Maxwell still advocates a measured approach without speed as a priority.

…The fastest support should not be our goal, as a community– there is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support something faster than we can– trying to match that would only erode our distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.

First do no harm.’ We should use the least disruptive mechanisms available, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test.

The developer has meanwhile found himself under fire lately from Bitcoin Unlimited proponents, notably Roger Ver, who released a dedicated presentation with quotes from Maxwell highlighting alleged errors.

“It’s important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the ecosystem to the extent that we can avoid it– be it developers, exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers,” Maxwell concluded.

Ultimately the rules of Bitcoin work because they’re enforced by the users collectively– that is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, it’s what makes it something people can count on: the rules aren’t easy to just change.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s recent price spike over $1,200 has been attributed by some to a sharp rise in the number of UASF-signaling nodes. Though this does not necessarily imply causation, the price has also dipped following the publication of Maxwell’s post.

What do you think about Greg Maxwell’s perspective on a UASF? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of uasf.org, twitter.com, shutterstock

Show comments

Share
Dub 06

ASICBOOST: Bitmain to Respond ‘Soon’ to Exploit Accusations

· April 6, 2017 · 5:00 am

Bitmain CEO Jihan Wu has vowed to respond ‘soon’ to accusations the miner is exploiting a Bitcoin vulnerability to manipulate mining.


Bitmain, Vulnerability Outing ‘Huge SegWit Confidence Boost’

A “covert” use of so-called ASICBOOST technology was circulated to the Core mailing list by contributor Greg Maxwell Wednesday. This would allow “a major manufacturer” to unfairly profit from centralization.

While Bitmain was not named by Maxwell, community sources subsequently confirmed the company’s involvement.

Maxwell wrote:

Exploitation of this vulnerability could result in payoff of as much as $100 million USD per year at the time this was written (Assuming at 50% hash-power miner was gaining a 30% power advantage and that mining was otherwise at profit equilibrium).  This could have a phenomenal centralizing effect by pushing mining out of profitability for all other participants, and the income from secretly using this optimization could be abused to significantly distort the Bitcoin ecosystem in order to preserve the advantage.

The Core developer also proposed solutions to prevent the attack becoming a major problem, in a move praised by Tone Vays as “a huge confidence boost” for the SegWit supporters.

Wu: Bitmain Statement ‘Soon’

Wu meanwhile stated Bitmain would provide a statement “soon.”

Previously, suspicion had already fallen on the Bitcoin Unlimited supporter, with community members noting he had deleted tweets about ASICBOOST. They added Wu’s BU support could be linked to the Bitmain operation.

While ASICBOOST was originally invented by Sergio Lerner among others, who also contributes to SegWit concepts, Maxwell stated that none of the technology’s creators were “aware” of the exploit.

“Reverse engineering of a mining ASIC from a major [manufacturer] has revealed that it contains an undocumented, undisclosed ability to make use of this attack. (The parties claiming to hold a patent on this technique were completely unaware of this use.),” he continued.

On the above basis the potential for covert exploitation of this vulnerability and the resulting inequality in the mining process and interference with useful improvements presents a clear and present danger to the Bitcoin system which requires a response.

In Summer 2016, KnCMiner declared bankruptcy over the Bitcoin block reward halving causing them unsustainable overheads.

The firm had previously been taken to court in its native Sweden by customers complaining over delays and defects with its products.

The startup had meanwhile raised over $32 million in investment.

What do you think about Greg Maxwell’s post? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of Twitter, Shutterstock

Show comments

Share
Bře 31

Adam Back to Jihan Wu: SegWit Not ‘Complicated,’ Fixes Satoshi’s Bug

· March 31, 2017 · 8:00 am

3,425 views

Hashcash inventor Adam Back has said Segregated Witness (SegWit) “fixes” an original bug in Bitcoin from creator Satoshi Nakamoto.


Back: SegWit ‘Fixes Satoshi Bug’

As part of a Twitter exchange Friday, Back rebuffed criticism from Bitcoin Unlimited proponent Jihan Wu, demonstrating how SegWit is beneficial to the virtual currency’s core protocol.

Wu, who is a co-founder of mining conglomerate Bitmain, had said that the technology would make the network “more complicated.”

adam-back

“SegWit is not more complicated,” Back wrote.

“It fixes Satoshi’s bug that txid=H(tx,sig) to txid=H(tx) this is not complicated, and it is necessary to fix.”

What’s more, if implemented, SegWit can can actually help reduce the so-called “technical debt” burden of complicated code albeit having its own tradeoffs, which are assessed here.

The segwit code has been heavily reviewed, which helps resist the introduction of technical debt at both a code and design level…Segwit has multiple independent reimplementations, which helps discover any unnecessary complexity and technical debt at the point that it can still be avoided.

SegWit: Complicated & Straightforward

Wu’s stance echoes a broader opinion from the Chinese community in particular that SegWit creates unnecessary complexity within Bitcoin.

In an interview with Bitcoinist this month, for example, Leon Liu, CEO of P2P trading service Bitkan, said that this was a reason why the technology “is not the best solution for Bitcoin scaling.”

“Segwit will not be the best solution for Bitcoin scaling, it will make the Bitcoin network more complicated,” he stated.

At the same time, efforts have been made to allay such fears, Blocktrail CTO Ruben De Vries commenting last year that SegWit “is not very complicated if you already know the ins and outs of the Bitcoin protocol.”

segregated-witness

Back meanwhile has praised attempts at educating the wider community on the nature of scaling solutions without resorting to ‘political’ siding.

An explainer on SegWit by Andreas Antonopoulos garnered considerable praise, Back describing it as “the best he’d seen on the topic.”

On its benefits, Antonopoulos wrote in the blog post, which originally came out in August last year:

“Firstly, segregated witness reduces the overall cost of transactions by discounting witness data and increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain.

“Secondly, segregated witness’ discount on witness data corrects a misalignment of incentives that may have inadvertently created more bloat in the UTXO set.”

Litecoin Bounce on SegWit Rumors?

SegWit is traditionally considered ‘complicated’ compared to merely increasing the Bitcoin block size, despite the latter requiring a hard fork of the virtual currency.

Currently, the proposal is still behind Bitcoin Unlimited though both need at least 95% to activate.

12121212

Outside the Bitcoin debate, rumors surfacing that Litecoin is to activate SegWit may have led to a surprise expansion in value of the altcoin by around 30%.

What do you think about the contrasting opinions on SegWit? Will it add complexity to Bitcoin? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Twitter

Show comments

Share
Bře 23

Large Tokyo Bitcoin Meetup Turnout Includes Jihan Wu, Core Supporters

· March 23, 2017 · 6:00 pm

1,980 views

Wednesday saw the largest Tokyo Bitcoin meetup “in years” take place at the Pink Cow in the Japanese capital’s Minato district.


‘No Arguments’ Despite Core, Unlimited Presence

Featuring appearances from Roger Ver, Jihan Wu and others, the meetup, organized by Chinese platform Bitkan, focused only lightly on the current Bitcoin scaling problem, with speakers presenting a range of opinions on the current and future state of Bitcoin.

Ver himself spoke on “the importance of Bitcoin’s economic code,” while Wu’s presentation titled “What does Satoshi said [sic] about scaling Bitcoin?” was focused on the global Bitcoin ecosystem.

img_4964

Other speakers included Bitkan MD Ruby Chen, Local exchange BTCBOX whose CEO David Zhang focused on Bitcoin business development, as well as journalist Jon Southurst, who presented on Bitcoin trading and business. 

“Overall the atmosphere was pretty cordial. There were some big bitcoin heavy-hitters there like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Chandler Guo, plus a number of devs and project managers representing both sides of the BU/Core debate,” Southurst told Bitcoinist. “We were expecting some arguments but there weren’t any big ones.”

Focus on Eastern Promise

Host Bitkan was particularly buoyant on the future of Bitcoin in Japan as nearly one hundred people attended the event. Bitkan’s Operations Director Sandy Liang noted that the market would be of particular interest in terms of traders in the near term.

img_4965

“During the event, we met many Japanese companies,” she subsequently commented to Bitcoinist.

The whole market is growing rapidly. Bitcoin is becoming more and more popular in Japan. We are also aware that there will be a cryptocurrency law in April to regulate the whole Japanese Bitcoin market.

While Bitkan maintains a neutral stance on scaling, the mood in the air regarding the current stalemate in Bitcoin regarding how to proceed was palpable at the meetup.

This nonetheless contrasted with the considerably more upfront rhetoric witnessed from some attendees and others online over the past months.

img_4963

Ver has been especially vocal on the part of Bitcoin Unlimited, stating in an interview with Mad Bitcoins at the weekend he would sell his entire BTC holdings in return for BTU in future.

He also appeared to accept an offer from Bitcoin ‘whale’ Loaded this week, who offered a BTC-BTU trade agreement worth “up to” 130,000 bitcoins.

“This sounds like a great deal for both of us,” he replied.  “I look forward to ironing out the exact details and terms.  I’m super busy for the next 48 hours,  but would love to connect after that.”

The final decision is thus due following culmination of the Tokyo meetup.

Were you at the meetup? What are your thoughts on the presentations and comments? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of Bitkan, Shutterstock

Show comments

Share
Bře 22

Roger Ver Confirms He’ll Sell His Bitcoin: 130K BTU Trade a ‘Great Deal’

· March 22, 2017 · 5:00 am

Roger Ver has received a pre-hard fork trade offer worth “up to” 130,000 bitcoins in a bargain receiving heavy publicity.


Ver: Up To 130k Trade ‘Sounds Like Great Deal’

According to a post of the Bitcointalk forum, a Bitcoin bagholder known as “Loaded” signed a message from a wallet containing 40,000 BTC.

In the message, Loaded challenges Ver to a one-to-one BTC/BTU trade in the event of a hard fork occurring.

“@RogerVer lets make a deal, 1 for 1 trade. At least 60k, possibly up to 130k, my BTU for your BTC,” the message reads.

“The offer is open to Jihan Wu as well,” Loaded continued in a further post.

Consider it primarily as a vote of no confidence in the Bitcoin Unlimited software and development team as it currently stands. I’ll add the contingency that the deal is null and void if there are major changes to either.

Responding to the offer, Ver seemed enthusiastic.

Roger Ver Bitcoin Uncensored block size

“This sounds like a great deal for both of us.  I look forward to ironing out the exact details and terms,” he said, adding he was too busy to confirm for the next two days.

Ver to Dump BTC Stash as Foreboding Grips Bitcoin

While the trade cannot go ahead unless or until Bitcoin Unlimited becomes a separate chain, Ver has already signaled his own vote of no confidence in Core, stating in an interview with MadBitcoins at the weekend that he would dump his BTC holdings.

Rumored to have a total of around 300,000 coins, the trade would produce significant downward pressure on the price of BTC, though it seems that some “whales” will be ready to scoop up Ver’s coins in no time.

Uncertainty over the future and its consequences is meanwhile filtering through the rest of Bitcoin’s best-known names.

Rhetoric first over the so-called UASF, then later changing Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm, is now increasingly concerned with value protection.

vinny-lingham-640

In his latest blog post titled “For the Love of Bitcoin,” entrepreneur and veteran commentator Vinny Lingham cited the “old adage” in investment that “markets will stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid.”

“Roger Ver confirmed exactly what I wrote in [a previous post] ‘A Fork in the Road’ — that he will be dumping his BTC. That will send the market spinning, for sure,” he added.

Bitcoin Unlimited meanwhile suffered another denial of service attack Tuesday, with its node count plummeting in minutes due to a bug occurring “just six lines above” the previous one, which halved node numbers last week.

coin-dance-unlimitednodes

Also predicting the forked future is Bitfinex, which is currently offering BTU futures at a rate of $351 per coin at press time. BTC futures, with the ticker BCC, are trading at $720.

What do you think about Roger Ver’s trade? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of Twitter, Shutterstock, Coin.dance

Show comments

Share