Jon Matonis - Keynote Speaker | London Speaker Bureau

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part I]

Bitcoin was released to the world in 2009 by someone (or a group) who authored a technical whitepaper, released the source code to the protocol and commented on a few p2p forums and mailing lists under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto for a few months prior and a few years afterwards before leaving the project. The project was left in the hands of Gavin Andresson who was another cryptographer that satoshi communicated regularly with on the forums and had been one of the first people involved in the project. Some time after satoshi left, one of his accounts was allegedly hacked and bitcointalk (the primary forum) itself was hacked so a meme kind of emerged that satoshi wouldn't be able to post again from his accounts or that posting from them would be dubious. In 2016 an Australian by the name of Craig S Wright was exposed by Wired and Gizmodo as potentially being the inventor of bitcoin. Craig then signed privately for Gavin Andreson, Jon Matonis but then when he was supposed to cryptographically sign to a journalist the method performed did not hold up to public scrutiny because he could have copy pasted a fragment from an earlier known signed message from satoshi and not generated it himself with the private keys. This cast a lot of doubt from many on the man's claims and he published an article saying he wasn't brave enough to sign.
Since then the term cryptocurrency has blown out massively to include anything with a distributed ledger technology, a token, a security, and has really just devolved into a cesspit of buzzwords and disinformation. Once satoshi disappeared in 2011 and left the repo in the hands of Gavin and the open source community, it left a power vacuum in the space for how to interpret the protocol, whitepaper and handle the development. Gavin Andresson brought some other developers on board from the forums and mailing lists, Shortly after Gavin gave some other developers commit access, bitcointalk was hacked and these new developers somehow deleted gavin from the github repo due to apparent concern that his account was compromised from the hack and afterwards once he validated his identity in certain accounts he was never given access again. Gavin stopped being involved with the project after that.
In the time following satoshi's departure a meme had evolved that satoshi had left because Gavin had met with the CIA to discuss bitcoin. This meme combined with the interpretation of what satoshi meant when he included the quote "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block, the subsequent rise and fall of silk road and darknet markets, and the general lore of the space, his cypherpunk mailing list associations had led the scene to paint/project upon him as some kind of government hating tax dodging l33t h4xor demigod.
Although in the title of the whitepaper it was described as p2p cash, bitcoin as most know it is now is marketed as a store of value. Although it was defined as the longest Proof of Work chain of digital signatures, bitcoin as most know it in actual fact has segregated witnesses (signatures) in the protocol. Although satoshi attests to how bitcoin is designed to scale to giant block sizes hosted and mined in data centers that never really hits a scaling ceiling, it is being sold as that even at 1MB size, the damage has already been done and the blocksize should be 300kB because every user needs to be able to run a full node for bitcoin to validate their own transactions with the lowest hardware and bandwidth requirements possible. A high vertice count with everyone running a (non-mining) full node is said to protect the network against malicious actions by the big bad government while graph theory states that it is the degree of inter connectivity of the vertcies (edge number) that confers security of the network against sybil attacks as it brings the number of hops down.
This decoupling from the original vision has led to development and scaling of bitcoin stalling for many years which led to the proliferation of many alt coins rising up to claim they possess superior attributes to bitcoin or can work in conjunction with bitcoin in a gold and silver type relationship, or serve a different use case to bitcoin. The debate between the groups that represented the opposing roadmaps reached a climax with bitcoin itself forking into two now separate blockchains with the minority chain being declared the imposter by social media claiming hashpower and the market had chosen despite their chain changing on the protocol level to implement segregated witnesses and reject the block size increase. These two now separate chains both forked again to birth bitcoin gold and diamond on the segwit chain and bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv on the non segwit chain. At the non segwit chain fork, bitcoin cash implemented checkpointing at the protocol level whereas bitcoin sv maintained the original nakamoto consensus and sought to scale greater than the 32MB blocksize limit BCH maintained with 64MB blocks.
Following these forking events both BTC (segwit) and BCH (checkpoints) also implemented Schnorr signatures which was marketed as economising the size of a typical bitcoin transaction though in actual fact it can be used to obfuscate signatures and allow for the mixing of coins to mask the chain of digital signatures and essentially "anonymously" launder money. The BSV chain (now Stewarded by Dr Craig Wright) was then declared the loser of that hash war by people heralding the power of the market and the miners to democratize money. The problem with such a claim though is just like current polical democracy, this apparent democratisation of money was just as susceptible to the influence of those who control the cryptocurrency media and just like in politics, there is a cabal like group that exerts a disproportionate influence over the narrative and appears to serve the interests of those in on the racket rather than those it is allegedly informing.
The main forums for discussion of cryptocurrency originally were bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /Bitcoin with all three of them for some time sharing the same moderator theymos. Coindesk and the bitcoinmagazine (started by ethereum devs) were some early sources, talking heads like andreas antonopolos (andreasma), peter todd (petertodd) and greg maxwell (nullc) being propped up as sources of knowledge on what is the best course of action for scaling and endorsing solutions like small blocks, second layer solutions and segwit as a necessarry bitcoin improvement protocol (BIP) while people like Roger Ver (memory dealers) and Dr Craig Wright (craig_s_wright) endorsing a block size increase. Because the core developers had chosen to scale with small blocks and lots of nodes on the network were signalling in support of Segwit any discussion of a big block alternative was considered discussion of an alt coin and deleted and eventually users banned from /bitcoin. Out of that incident /btc emerged as an apparently censorship free forum for the discussion of all scaling plans for bitcoin but was ultimately a partisan sub populated with dejected big blockers. After the BCH fork, discussion for bitcoin sv exists on a few subs /bsv (modded by BCHers), /bitcoinsv (moderated by the lead technician at nChain (Craig Wright's company) and /bitcoincashsv where many users have been banned from both /bitcoin and /btc.
Now this so far is just kind of a synposis of the history of bitcoin covering all three of the main contenders for the legitimate claimant of the name but the part 2 will look more at what kind of drastically different societies would be built upon the different versions of the protocol and what may seem like their subtle differences and which one is likely to succeed.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Foundation: Where did all the Money Go?

This week Charles Hoskinson posted a thoughtful post on the Bitcoin Foundation and his idea that an audit would help the organization break from the past.
I'm happy to support an audit provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one.
I do remain skeptical of the value of an audit. We all know that a lot of money was wasted and lost - I detail the basics of the 2014 spending below -- it is unlikely worse than imagined as all the funds are essentially gone. I don't think much can be done about past mistakes, the people involved are no longer with the organization.
Also this week, someone on an anti-Bitcoin sub posted this data from the 990 forms and was afraid it would be censored if posted on Bitcoin.
I'm happy to post it for them, minus the color commentary and a couple of minor factual inaccuracies.
They also implied that some people would want to not have this information brought to light. I'm more than glad to. I don't defend these financial decisions as I had nothing to do with them. I also had thought the 2014 990 form with this was posted once completed this summer. At that time we were going through a website and server change and I was also recovering from a car accident, so if it was posted it wasn't in the proper place. For not having the 990 form posted in the correct section a few months back , that's on me and I'm sorry.
The bigger matter is the financials themselves.
I don't defend these financials, I certainly don't apologize for them or attempt to justify them. I had nothing whatsoever to do with these decisions.
As you can see the spending / loss was caused by:
1) a large drop in Bitcoin value costing millions of dollars - the peak foundation assets were calculated based on a Bitcoin price in the $800 range -- so, had they simply held those coins it would have seen the $6-7 million fall to $2 million or so
2) ridiculously wasteful and reckless spending
3) reasonable and legitimate expenses such as Gavin and dev salaries
I have not been presented any evidence of any theft, criminal act or similar wrongdoing but would be happy to pay a bounty of at least 10% for anyone with information and evidence of any such act leading to recovery of any funds which were misappropriated or stolen. Those who imply that there is any wrongdoing at the foundation now or by those involved now should come forward with evidence or at least a solid and specific accusation. If presented with any such evidence I would work to have justice done.
It seems strange that so many make an effort to tie those involved now to the sins of the past.
This is the point of a turnaround; to take what an organization has and make it as useful as possible. Many people think that the change in management and new focus, combined with a new mission statement can help the organization to help Bitcoin more.
I wish that the foundation hadn't had so many problems. I did think it was worthwhile to try to help the organization.
Here are the finances:
Salaries
Gavin Andresen: $147k. Chief Scientist. Salary down from $209k (salary was higher in 2013 as it was pegged to BTCUSD)
Jodie Brady: $141k. COO of the Foundation, who also served as CFO at CoinLab (Peter Vessenes' affiliate company).
Jon Matonis: $137.5k through "THE HOLE OF ROY LLC". Salary up from $31k. Jon Matonis acted as Executive Director up to October 2014.
Patrick Murck: $115k. Executive Director of the Foundation (as of November 2014). Salary up from $57k.
Contractors:
"LOCAL PRODUCER" was paid $790k to host Bitcoin 2014 in Amsterdam.
Apple Fundraising Consultants were also paid $123k for activities related to the aforementioned conference.
THEPOLICYCOUNCILCOM INC as the Foundation's 'Global Policy Counsel', paid $114k for about 9 months of work in 2014.
And the breakdown of the functional expenses, oh, so many expenses: Office Expenses: $39k up from $8k in 2013.
Information Technology: $158k up from $67k
Travel: $159k up from $69k
Occupancy: $18k up from $7k.
Accounting: $50.5k up from $9.1k.
Legal fees: $220k up from $161k.
Other: $653k, consisting of:
Professional services: $307k
Public relations: $93k
Executive Directory Compensation: $137.5k
Professional event expenses: $115k
Other salaries and wages: $471k up from $72k
Revenues : Membership dues: $335k down from $358k Conference revenue: $584k up from $337k At the end of 2014 not much was left: $366k.
2015
The beginning of 2015 still had many expenses similar to the above. At the time I came aboard those costs reduced dramatically. There were still high outstanding legal and accounting bills as well as the bitnodes funding and Bitcoin.org funding and other previous obligations that were paid.
Current spending is in the $8k / mo range
Current expenses:
Board salaries: $0
Executive Director salary: $0
All reimbursements for travel: in the range of $3000 - primarily for three speakers airfare and hotel (me, Gavin and Andreas) to DevCore, $600 in pizza for the attendees etc.
Aside from one economy flight to DevCore and the hotel I have personally not been reimbursed for any travel. I have paid some costs from my own credit card for web hosting etc which were also reimbursed - this is also a small amount, perhaps in the $2000 range
Current salaries include one part time bookkeeper and one almost full time ops director.
I'd love any feedback about what the organization can do to break from the past. We could close, sure. I'm not convinced that is what's best for Bitcoin and 8/10 top voted candidates from the last four elections don't think that's what the members want. What else can an organization do to move forward?
EDIT: BTW, here is the mission statement posted a couple weeks back by the new board - IMHO it's more productive to focus on this than the past https://github.com/BruceFenton/bitcoinfoundationplan
submitted by bruce_fenton to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Ideology

The digital gold rush is upon us and I thought it would be helpful for those that only see Bitcoin as an investment to understand the philosophical reasons to own Bitcoin. To the bitcoin warriors out there, keep doing your thing to promote this revolutionary protocol. Peace and love.
IF you’ve only recently tuned in to the seemingly endless conversation about bitcoin, you could be forgiven for thinking that the digital currency is little more than the latest Wall Street fetish or a juiced-up version of PayPal. After all, so many headlines in the last few weeks have focused on its market price and the cool stuff you can get with it: Bitcoin breaks $1,000! Bitcoin plunges by a half! Bitcoin has a banner Black Friday! Use bitcoin to buy a ride on Richard Branson’s starship!
But all the talk about bitcoin’s value (or lack thereof) obscures the fact that it was never really meant as an investment nor primarily as a way to purchase sex toys or alpaca socks — let alone a brand-new Lamborghini. One could argue that bitcoin isn’t chiefly a commercial venture at all, a funny thing to say about a kind of online cash. To its creators and numerous disciples, bitcoin is — and always has been — a mostly ideological undertaking, more philosophy than finance.
“The ideas behind it — that’s what attracted me,” said Elizabeth Ploshay, a regular writer for Bitcoin magazine, which describes its mission as being “the most accurate and up-to-date source of information, news and commentary about bitcoin.” And if the magazine has a mission, so, too, does the subject that it covers. As Ms. Ploshay explained it, bitcoin isn’t merely money; it’s “a movement” — a crusade in the costume of a currency. Depending on whom you talk to, the goal is to unleash repressed economies, to take down global banking or to wage a war against the Federal Reserve.
For those with an uncertain understanding of its history, bitcoin entered the world on Jan. 3, 2009, when a shadowy hacker — or team of hackers — working under the name Satoshi Nakamoto released an ingenious string of computer code that established a system permitting people to transfer money to one another online, directly, anonymously and outside government control, in much the way that Napster once allowed the unrestrained transfer of music files. In a 500-word essay that accompanied the code, Nakamoto suggested that the motive for creating bitcoin was anger at the financial crisis: “The root problem with conventional currencies is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.”
It was fundamentally a political document and, as such, it attracted followers among libertarian and anarchist groups who saw in bitcoin a means of removing the money supply from the grasping hands of government. In blog posts and at bitcoin conferences around the globe, these evangelists began to spread its gospel. It is only in the last few months, as bitcoin has attracted the attention of political parties, regulators and speculative investors that the narrative of bitcoin as a tool for change has been drowned out by a simpler story line: that of bitcoin as a kind of crypto-credit card — or, even more, as a digitized casino game.
“Price is the least interesting thing about bitcoin,” said Roger Ver, an early investor who is often called, in a typical movement phrase, the Bitcoin Jesus. “At first, almost everyone who got involved did so for philosophical reasons. We saw bitcoin as a great idea, as a way to separate money from the state.”
While the bitcoin hype has inspired Ron Paulian dreams of evading inflation and undermining the Federal Reserve, the currency has also gained cachet among less conspicuously conservative adherents, like the founders of BitPesa, a start-up firm in Nairobi, Kenya, that plans to help Africans abroad send money to their families at home. According to the World Bank, $1.3 billion in remittances is sent each year to Kenya, a process that costs about $110 million in fees. By using bitcoin’s peer-to-peer technology to avoid banks and wire-transfer companies like Western Union, BitPesa hopes to reduce these fees by two-thirds, saving ordinary Africans $74 million annually.
You know you’re talking to a true bitcoin believer if you hear the word “disruption.” But that’s how bitcoin is seen within the broader movement: as an unruly tool with potentially transformative effects on entrenched businesses like retail payment and asset management.
“Right now in the United States, bitcoin is mainly considered a get-rich-quick scheme with a little financial privacy thrown in,” said Jon Matonis, the executive director of the Bitcoin Foundation, the self-proclaimed center of the decentralized crusade. “But its larger implications down the road are major disruptions to certain legacy industries.”
Mr. Matonis added that the ideology of bitcoin was wide enough to accommodate people on all points on the spectrum — “from libertarian capitalists to socialists.” It not only has a following among the anti-central bank crowd, he said; it has also proved attractive to communitarians like the residents of the Kreuzberg neighborhood in Berlin, which now boasts the highest density of businesses accepting bitcoin in the world.
There are even those who see bitcoin as the ultimate alternative to the global banking system. Ryan Singer, a co-founder of the bitcoin exchange Tradehill, based in San Francisco, compared the currency to email, conjecturing that it would gradually supplant traditional banking, just as digital messaging displaced handwritten letters. “When kids wake up to the fact that they don’t need their parents’ help to create a bitcoin wallet,” Mr. Singer said, “when they can use bitcoins for free international transactions, at any hour, in every major city on the planet, then you’ll know that something has changed.”
Perhaps the best proof of bitcoin’s ideological underpinnings is that a schism has emerged in recent weeks between moderate elements in the movement who sense the necessity of cooperating with officialdom, and a more uncompromising faction that wants to keep bitcoin free from any government regulation. The hard-line bloc is exemplified by the crypto-anarchist developers of a bitcoin product called Dark Wallet, which is scheduled to be introduced next year and will include extra protections to ensure that bitcoin transactions remain secure, anonymous and difficult to trace.
“We see this as part of the total sublation of the state,” said Cody Wilson, Dark Wallet’s director, who gained fame earlier this year when he published online the blueprints to a pistol that could be manufactured with a 3-D printer. “I know I sound like some kind of weird Jehovah’s Witness, but we’ve only just begun. We admit that we are ideologues.”
submitted by mw8912a to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Happy New Year: Presenting the long overdue Bitcoin Foundation 2014 financial results!

Hi,
Today we continue our coverage of the glorious Bitcoin Foundation by assisting them with their own transparency goals. Just like any tax-exempt non-profit the Foundation has to file Form 990 annually, and so they did on 2015-07-23. The website with transparency goals actually previously stated "2014 will become available once filed in the spring of 2015". Par for the course Bruce 'FENTON!' Fenton figured he may as well hide it after realizing the return may reflect poorly on the Foundation. Luckily our shills over at the Foundation Center are kind enough to provide us with a copy.
Bear in mind this is the fiscal year dated 01-01-2014 ending 12-31-2014, the year Bitcoin took a massive hit. For context; the Bitcoin Foundation has one primary asset: BTC-coins. At the beginning of the year BTC-coins were still worth quite a bit (some $800), while shortly into the year they traded slightly closer to fair-value (ending the year at $316). Perhaps you would expect the Foundation to curb expenses, however that goes against the libertarian school of thought (fuck you, got mine!).
Now on to the good stuff, here's how our favorite group of libertarians spent the majority of donated funbux in one year, knowing the Foundation's assets were depleting rapidly. As Reddit is known for bullshit doxxing rules we'll stick to what is written on the return, which is very much open to public inspection. Now, without further ado;
As we discovered in 2013 the Foundation's primary goal is rewarding their board of directors & officers, as we all know they work very hard:
And there are some contractors:
And the breakdown of the functional expenses, oh, so many expenses:
The revenues improved a lot of course, as you would expect with the increased expenses:
At the end of 2014 not much was left: $366k. Of course some membership fees were coming in early 2015 which allowed the board to continue their rampage a little longer. In the board meeting minutes of 7-21 you can read that the party is over ($59k left) and expenses have been cut to $14k/month. Meeting minutes of October show "Brock says that it looks like things were going well from a revenue standpoint until February and we've lost the remaining cash since then" (LOL). Desperation strikes near the end of the meeting with Bruce 'FENTON!' Fenton asking all participants to individually raise $10k before the next board meeting. Olivier Janssens doubts this is possible, and also states he isn't happy that financials haven't been published yet. Well now they are.
In fairness to the Foundation there have been some roster changes and most (if not all) people mentioned above are no longer involved. Which may or may not have something to do with that fact they could no longer get paid by the Foundation (kidding, of course it has everything to do with that).
tl;dr Libertarians are bad at managing finances.
submitted by BTC-coins to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2017 a Comprehensive Timeline

Some of the most notable news and events over the past year:
Jan 3:
Jan 10:
Jan 17:
Jan 19:
Feb 8:
Feb 9:
Feb 24:
Mar 1:
Mar 2:
Mar 10:
Mar 12:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 23:
Mar 28:
Apr 1:
Apr 5:
Apr 6:
Apr 12:
Apr 20:
Apr 26:
May 2:
May 9:
May 10:
May 21:
May 22:
May 23:
May 31:
Jun 2:
Jun 14:
Jun 29 - Jul 1:
Jun 30:
Jul 12:
Jul 16:
Jul 17:
Jul 22:
Jul 23:
Jul 24:
Jul 25:
Jul 27:
Jul 28:
Jul 31:
Aug 1:
Aug 2:
Aug 3:
Aug 10:
Aug 12:
Aug 15:
Aug 17:
Aug 21:
Aug 22:
Aug 24:
Aug 25:
Aug 28:
Aug 29:
Aug 30:
Aug 31:
Sep 1:
Sep 2:
Sep 3:
Sep 4:
Sep 5:
Sep 6:
Sep 7:
Sep 8:
Sep 9:
Sep 10:
Sep 12:
Sep 13:
Sep 14:
Sep 15:
Sep 17:
Sep 19:
Sep 20:
Sep 21:
Sep 23:
Sep 24:
Sep 25:
Sep 26:
Sep 27:
Sep 28:
Sep 29:
Sep 30:
Oct 4:
Oct 7:
Oct 9:
Oct 10:
Oct 11:
Oct 12:
Oct 13:
Oct 14:
Oct 16:
Oct 27:
Oct 30:
Nov 1:
Nov 2:
Nov 3:
Nov 4:
Nov 7:
Nov 8:
Nov 9:
Nov 10:
Nov 12:
Nov 13:
Nov 20:
Nov 21:
Nov 27:
Nov 28:
Dec 2:
Dec 5:
Dec 6
Dec 7
Dec 9
Dec 10
Dec 11
Dec 12
Dec 13
Dec 14
Dec 15
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 19
Dec 20
Dec 21
Dec 22
Dec 23
Dec 25
Dec 27
Dec 29
Dec 30
Dec 31
submitted by BitcoinChronicler to btc [link] [comments]

WEPOWER REVIEW

Project overview
WePower is a blockchain-based green energy trading platform which enables renewable energy producers to raise capital by issuing their own energy tokens.
These tokens represent energy they commit to produce and deliver. Energy tokenization standardizes simplifies and opens globally currently existing energy investment ecosystem.
As a result energy producers can trade directly with the green energy buyers (consumers and investors) and raise capital by selling energy upfront, at below market rates. Energy tokenization ensures liquidity and extends access to capital.
Minimum investment = 100 USD in ETH
Token sale date = 1 Feb 2018
Soft CAP = 5 M USD
Hard Cap = 40M USD
Total Supply = 746 mil token
Total supply for sale = 463 mil. token
TEAM
I have individually researched every member of the team however I will not go too much into details. I like that every member and their current position is matching their background and previous experience.
Alongside them, they have different investors and advisors who are also having a good background backed by extensive experience in their field. You can find and verify every single one of the members on Linkedin and further research their records.
Below you can find some information around what I consider to be the core team members.
Nikolaj Martyniuk - Co-Founder, Energy background
10 years experience working in the energy sector. He has been building energy and solar plants as well as being involved in the energy import/export between countries. I checked his linked profile and almost his entire career has been focused on the natural production of energy and renewable energy projects.
Artūras Asakavičius - Co-Founder, Investment background Co-Founder and chairman of Lithuanian Finch Association. strong background in Law, practicing at one of the biggest firms in the Baltics, he is responsible for all finch blockchain and crypto related businesses and regulations. His Linkedin profile also match his skills with numerous endorsements for banking law, legal advice etc.
Kaspar Kaarlep – CTO, Energy background
Kaspar previously was the CTO of a large National DSO, and has worked on the green energy integration and Smart Grids challenge from different angles for 7 years. He was responsible for development and execution of the DSO strategic plan, and their Smart Grid technology roadmap as well as the management of the overall Information Technology and Operational Technology enterprise architecture.
Heikki Kolk – System architecture
Heikki is the Principal Consultant for Catapult Lab’s consulting services team. In this role, he leads the overall activity of our three consulting service offerings Support. Prior to working at Catapult Labs, Heikki worked for Elektrilevi, the largest distribution system operator in Estonia, holding different positions over 10 years.
He was responsible for defining control center use cases in all major IT development and implementation projects in Elektrilevi, including a customer information system, several asset management systems, and smart metering systems.
Kaspar and Heikki bring together a team of 12 energy engineers and programmers with a commitment to connect WePower to the energy infrastructure to become the new generation utility company.
Their Blockchain development is led by Jon Matonis (founding partner of Bitcoin Foundation), our token economy is structured with the help of Eyal Hertzog (chief product architect of the Bancor Protocol) and David Allen Cohen (smart grid innovator) helps with software matters.
WHITEPAPER
Wepower is a blockchain -based green energy-trading platform. How does it work ?
The energy producers are joining the WePower platform and agree to provide x amount of power over an agreed period of time.
They will issue their own energy token where 1 token = 1 kWh.
As a Wepower token holder you will have priority to participate at auctions and buy the energy at a discounted price. The auction opens to WPR token holders first , usually 48 hours in advance. Priority allocation for energy token auction is proportional to the amount of WPR the holder has.
After this period has elapsed, the remaining energy is offered to all WePower platform participants.
The lowest prices are set by the auctioning party using current and historical energy prices visible on the platform.
This way the energy producers will have access to capital so they can complete the project fast without having to wait for government subsidies, bank loans etc.
Furthermore all energy providers that will be using the platform to raise capital will donate at least 0.9% of the produced energy to the WPR token holders, forever. This incentive model is used so that investors are receiving a guaranteed return on their investment along with having access to auctions where they can buy energy at below market price and the potential increase in value of tokens over time.
In short, if you are holding WPR tokens they will accumulate energy which you can use in your house (assuming that WePower is operational in your country as an independent energy provider), sell it to the wholesale market for fiat or cash once the energy is produced, or sell it in advance on the WePower trading platform to any other user.
The WePower platform demo version is ready and can be accessed following this link: http://platform.wepower.network/.
Regarding the token sale, WePower is working with Bancor which will provide ultimate liquidity for token holders.
As of right now WePower is working closely with Elering (transmission operator) to launch a pilot tokenizing all Estonian energy sector. I believe this is possible as the country has only 1.3 million population as of 2018. It also helps that Estonia has been recognized as one of the most technology advanced country in the world.
The project is also supported by the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania due to its potential global impact and ability to solve emission problems.
CONCLUSION
Wepower is an exciting project that actually contributes to the energy sector by producing and encouraging the production and utilisation of green energy.
The project is backed up by a solid team with extensive experience in the energy sector which is also surrounded by powerful investors and advisors.
Furthermore, WePower is already working with the ministry of Lithuania and are looking to launch in April 2018 a country-wide energy tokenization pilot project in Estonia.
Personally I am excited that we can all make a difference in supporting the green energy sector and not leaving everything at the hands of governments and big corporations.
submitted by cryptoflorin to icocrypto [link] [comments]

WEPOWER REVIEW

Project overview
WePower is a blockchain-based green energy trading platform which enables renewable energy producers to raise capital by issuing their own energy tokens.
These tokens represent energy they commit to produce and deliver. Energy tokenization standardizes simplifies and opens globally currently existing energy investment ecosystem.
As a result energy producers can trade directly with the green energy buyers (consumers and investors) and raise capital by selling energy upfront, at below market rates. Energy tokenization ensures liquidity and extends access to capital.
Minimum investment = 100 USD in ETH
Token sale date = 1 Feb 2018
Soft CAP = 5 M USD
Hard Cap = 40M USD
Total Supply = 746 mil token
Total supply for sale = 463 mil. token
TEAM
I have individually researched every member of the team however I will not go too much into details. I like that every member and their current position is matching their background and previous experience.
Alongside them, they have different investors and advisors who are also having a good background backed by extensive experience in their field. You can find and verify every single one of the members on Linkedin and further research their records.
Below you can find some information around what I consider to be the core team members.
Nikolaj Martyniuk - Co-Founder, Energy background
10 years experience working in the energy sector. He has been building energy and solar plants as well as being involved in the energy import/export between countries. I checked his linked profile and almost his entire career has been focused on the natural production of energy and renewable energy projects.
Artūras Asakavičius - Co-Founder, Investment background Co-Founder and chairman of Lithuanian Finch Association. strong background in Law, practicing at one of the biggest firms in the Baltics, he is responsible for all finch blockchain and crypto related businesses and regulations. His Linkedin profile also match his skills with numerous endorsements for banking law, legal advice etc.
Kaspar Kaarlep – CTO, Energy background
Kaspar previously was the CTO of a large National DSO, and has worked on the green energy integration and Smart Grids challenge from different angles for 7 years. He was responsible for development and execution of the DSO strategic plan, and their Smart Grid technology roadmap as well as the management of the overall Information Technology and Operational Technology enterprise architecture.
Heikki Kolk – System architecture
Heikki is the Principal Consultant for Catapult Lab’s consulting services team. In this role, he leads the overall activity of our three consulting service offerings Support. Prior to working at Catapult Labs, Heikki worked for Elektrilevi, the largest distribution system operator in Estonia, holding different positions over 10 years.
He was responsible for defining control center use cases in all major IT development and implementation projects in Elektrilevi, including a customer information system, several asset management systems, and smart metering systems.
Kaspar and Heikki bring together a team of 12 energy engineers and programmers with a commitment to connect WePower to the energy infrastructure to become the new generation utility company.
Their Blockchain development is led by Jon Matonis (founding partner of Bitcoin Foundation), our token economy is structured with the help of Eyal Hertzog (chief product architect of the Bancor Protocol) and David Allen Cohen (smart grid innovator) helps with software matters.
WHITEPAPER
Wepower is a blockchain -based green energy-trading platform. How does it work ?
The energy producers are joining the WePower platform and agree to provide x amount of power over an agreed period of time.
They will issue their own energy token where 1 token = 1 kWh.
As a Wepower token holder you will have priority to participate at auctions and buy the energy at a discounted price. The auction opens to WPR token holders first , usually 48 hours in advance. Priority allocation for energy token auction is proportional to the amount of WPR the holder has.
After this period has elapsed, the remaining energy is offered to all WePower platform participants.
The lowest prices are set by the auctioning party using current and historical energy prices visible on the platform.
This way the energy producers will have access to capital so they can complete the project fast without having to wait for government subsidies, bank loans etc.
Furthermore all energy providers that will be using the platform to raise capital will donate at least 0.9% of the produced energy to the WPR token holders, forever. This incentive model is used so that investors are receiving a guaranteed return on their investment along with having access to auctions where they can buy energy at below market price and the potential increase in value of tokens over time.
In short, if you are holding WPR tokens they will accumulate energy which you can use in your house (assuming that WePower is operational in your country as an independent energy provider), sell it to the wholesale market for fiat or cash once the energy is produced, or sell it in advance on the WePower trading platform to any other user.
The WePower platform demo version is ready and can be accessed following this link: http://platform.wepower.network/.
Regarding the token sale, WePower is working with Bancor which will provide ultimate liquidity for token holders.
As of right now WePower is working closely with Elering (transmission operator) to launch a pilot tokenizing all Estonian energy sector. I believe this is possible as the country has only 1.3 million population as of 2018. It also helps that Estonia has been recognized as one of the most technology advanced country in the world.
The project is also supported by the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania due to its potential global impact and ability to solve emission problems.
CONCLUSION
Wepower is an exciting project that actually contributes to the energy sector by producing and encouraging the production and utilisation of green energy.
The project is backed up by a solid team with extensive experience in the energy sector which is also surrounded by powerful investors and advisors.
Furthermore, WePower is already working with the ministry of Lithuania and are looking to launch in April 2018 a country-wide energy tokenization pilot project in Estonia.
Personally I am excited that we can all make a difference in supporting the green energy sector and not leaving everything at the hands of governments and big corporations. It's good to have Elon Musk but it would be even better if we all are good ol' musk....ies?
submitted by cryptoflorin to Crypto_ICO_Investing [link] [comments]

WEPOWER REVIEW

Project overview
WePower is a blockchain-based green energy trading platform which enables renewable energy producers to raise capital by issuing their own energy tokens.
These tokens represent energy they commit to produce and deliver. Energy tokenization standardizes simplifies and opens globally currently existing energy investment ecosystem.
As a result energy producers can trade directly with the green energy buyers (consumers and investors) and raise capital by selling energy upfront, at below market rates. Energy tokenization ensures liquidity and extends access to capital.
Minimum investment = 100 USD in ETH
Token sale date = 1 Feb 2018
Soft CAP = 5 M USD
Hard Cap = 40M USD
Total Supply = 746 mil token
Total supply for sale = 463 mil. token
TEAM
I have individually researched every member of the team however I will not go too much into details. I like that every member and their current position is matching their background and previous experience.
Alongside them, they have different investors and advisors who are also having a good background backed by extensive experience in their field. You can find and verify every single one of the members on Linkedin and further research their records.
Below you can find some information around what I consider to be the core team members.
Nikolaj Martyniuk - Co-Founder, Energy background
10 years experience working in the energy sector. He has been building energy and solar plants as well as being involved in the energy import/export between countries. I checked his linked profile and almost his entire career has been focused on the natural production of energy and renewable energy projects.
Artūras Asakavičius - Co-Founder, Investment background Co-Founder and chairman of Lithuanian Finch Association. strong background in Law, practicing at one of the biggest firms in the Baltics, he is responsible for all finch blockchain and crypto related businesses and regulations. His Linkedin profile also match his skills with numerous endorsements for banking law, legal advice etc.
Kaspar Kaarlep – CTO, Energy background
Kaspar previously was the CTO of a large National DSO, and has worked on the green energy integration and Smart Grids challenge from different angles for 7 years. He was responsible for development and execution of the DSO strategic plan, and their Smart Grid technology roadmap as well as the management of the overall Information Technology and Operational Technology enterprise architecture.
Heikki Kolk – System architecture
Heikki is the Principal Consultant for Catapult Lab’s consulting services team. In this role, he leads the overall activity of our three consulting service offerings Support. Prior to working at Catapult Labs, Heikki worked for Elektrilevi, the largest distribution system operator in Estonia, holding different positions over 10 years.
He was responsible for defining control center use cases in all major IT development and implementation projects in Elektrilevi, including a customer information system, several asset management systems, and smart metering systems.
Kaspar and Heikki bring together a team of 12 energy engineers and programmers with a commitment to connect WePower to the energy infrastructure to become the new generation utility company.
Their Blockchain development is led by Jon Matonis (founding partner of Bitcoin Foundation), our token economy is structured with the help of Eyal Hertzog (chief product architect of the Bancor Protocol) and David Allen Cohen (smart grid innovator) helps with software matters.
WHITEPAPER
Wepower is a blockchain -based green energy-trading platform. How does it work ?
The energy producers are joining the WePower platform and agree to provide x amount of power over an agreed period of time.
They will issue their own energy token where 1 token = 1 kWh.
As a Wepower token holder you will have priority to participate at auctions and buy the energy at a discounted price. The auction opens to WPR token holders first , usually 48 hours in advance. Priority allocation for energy token auction is proportional to the amount of WPR the holder has.
After this period has elapsed, the remaining energy is offered to all WePower platform participants.
The lowest prices are set by the auctioning party using current and historical energy prices visible on the platform.
This way the energy producers will have access to capital so they can complete the project fast without having to wait for government subsidies, bank loans etc.
Furthermore all energy providers that will be using the platform to raise capital will donate at least 0.9% of the produced energy to the WPR token holders, forever. This incentive model is used so that investors are receiving a guaranteed return on their investment along with having access to auctions where they can buy energy at below market price and the potential increase in value of tokens over time.
In short, if you are holding WPR tokens they will accumulate energy which you can use in your house (assuming that WePower is operational in your country as an independent energy provider), sell it to the wholesale market for fiat or cash once the energy is produced, or sell it in advance on the WePower trading platform to any other user.
The WePower platform demo version is ready and can be accessed following this link: http://platform.wepower.network/.
Regarding the token sale, WePower is working with Bancor which will provide ultimate liquidity for token holders.
As of right now WePower is working closely with Elering (transmission operator) to launch a pilot tokenizing all Estonian energy sector. I believe this is possible as the country has only 1.3 million population as of 2018. It also helps that Estonia has been recognized as one of the most technology advanced country in the world.
The project is also supported by the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania due to its potential global impact and ability to solve emission problems.
CONCLUSION
Wepower is an exciting project that actually contributes to the energy sector by producing and encouraging the production and utilisation of green energy.
The project is backed up by a solid team with extensive experience in the energy sector which is also surrounded by powerful investors and advisors.
Furthermore, WePower is already working with the ministry of Lithuania and are looking to launch in April 2018 a country-wide energy tokenization pilot project in Estonia.
Personally I am excited that we can all make a difference in supporting the green energy sector and not leaving everything at the hands of governments and big corporations. It's good to have Elon Musk but it would be even better if we all are good ol' musk....ies?
submitted by cryptoflorin to ICOAnalysis [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] It is time to unite, organize and squeeze-out any possible viability for S2X/NYA.

The following post by readish is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/76tkbp
The original post's content was as follows:
And the simplest, cheapest, fastest and more efficient way to do it is this one:
Expose to the sunlight what DCG is and who is behind it
First, let's just post the links to the sites listing all the companies supporting the attack for quick reference:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Then, let's post a list of the individuals still supporting this attack despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them about how and why S2X is not only totally pointless from the technical as well as economical (benefit for the whole ecosystem and not just a few) points of view and also about how and why S2X is an open attack on Bitcoin.
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite, that is as a system, but we, as individuals, do care and must be proactively working against this attack.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets, so here they are:
Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins and Jiang Zhuoer.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
  • DCG's Board of Directors and Advisors is almost entirely made up of Central Bankers including one currently sitting Member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and another who was Chief Economist at the World Bank.
  • The CEO of the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement (Barry Silbert) is an ex investment banker at Houlihan Lokey. Also, Mastercard is an investor in the company DCG, which Barry Silbert is the CEO of.
  • The company overseeing development on Segwit2x, Bitgo, has a product/service that seems to only have utility if transacting on chain and using 0-Conf is inefficient or unreliable.
  • Segwit2x takes power over Bitcoin development from core, but then literally gives it to central bankers and Mastercard. If segwit2x goes through, BTC development will quite literally be controlled by central bankers and a currently serving member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
Edit: Formatting.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

An Interview with Globitex Advisor Mark O'Byrne, Bullion Dealer and Gold Market Analyst

Globitex, the institutional Bitcoin exchange co-founded by Jon Matonis, aims to drive deep liquidity into the Bitcoin ecosystem, facilitated by the GBX token. Globitex team’s vision is of an exchange suitable for spot and derivatives trading using Bitcoin as the unit of account - expanding the utility of the cryptocurrency and fulfilling its potential to be the currency for global trade and settlement.
Mark O'Byrne serves as advisor to Globitex in areas concering physical gold trading and delivery. Mark is the research director of GoldCore which he founded in 2003. He is a leading international gold expert and a respected speaker on precious metals, investments, markets, geo-politics, finance, fintech and money
In which segment of the financial industry do you work and what do you specialise in?
I am the founder of GoldCore who are international gold brokers and we specialise in bullion coin and bar trading and secure bullion storage services. Founded in October 2003, just this week, we celebrated our 14th birthday and last month we reached the milestone of $1 billion in sales.
What is your view on the ICO industry at large?
I am concerned about it and think it is becoming very speculative with a lot of high risk ventures that will fail. In the long term, I am positive on ICOs and see them as potentially replacing the traditional IPO model. However, I see challenges in the near term and believe there will be a lot of 'creative destruction' in the ICO space. The better ventures and companies with the best people will come through this and thrive as they always do.
Going forward, what do you see as the most important issues to overcome for a project of scale such as Globitex?
Bitcoin is relatively untested in terms of a sharp U.S. or global recession or a major global financial crisis. Therefore, while it is showing store of value characteristics, since it only around since 2009, it has not been tested in this regard. A bear market in bitcoin or a sharp fall in the value of bitcoin and other crypto currencies might make some question the value of the Globitex model.
As a gold bullion dealer, do you see added value for precious metals to be tradable and deliverable against Bitcoin?
Yes I do. Bitcoin is increasingly trust by millions of people around the world and the adoption rate is very high. Some of the brightest tech and indeed monetary minds in the world have endorsed bitcoin and believe in its long term potential as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Therefore, it makes sense and will be of value to precious metals if they can be tradable and deliverable against Bitcoin and not just against fiat currencies which are dependent on the current global payments system (SWIFT) and indeed the current US dollar based monetary system. Also fiat currencies and deposits are vulnerable to exchange controls, capital controls and bail-ins or deposit confiscation.
One of the benefits is that it may make it harder for governments and regimes engaged in financial repression to ban gold and silver ownership as happened in the past. This was the case as recently as 2003 in China and is the case in North Korea today.
Why allow our economies to be vulnerable due to a complete dependence on a payments mono-system as is the SWIFT payments system and the current dollar based monetary system? Much better and safer to opt for abundant societies with a healthy market and vibrant ecosystem with a variety of means of exchange and stores of value including bitcoin, gold, silver etc. Do we want to live in a repressed society like say North Korea or an abundant free market society and economy like say Switzerland? People should be allowed to choose what they do with the fruits of their hard work and endeavors.
In your view, would the trading community and society at large benefit from tokenised issue of warehouse receipts, verifiable on public ledgers by anyone?
Yes the trading community, investors and society at large would benefit from tokenised issue of warehouse receipts which are verifiable on public ledgers. Transparency would help market participants and investors make more rational and prudent decisions and should help prevent market manipulation at the expense of producers and investors.
What is your view about a society in future, where nation states allocate national budgets on an open an publicly verifiable ledger for everyone to see, evaluate and even vote for or against public spending allocation?
It would be very good to see that. While it sounds somewhat utopian given the financial and economic state of the world today, it is something that we as citizens and nations should aspire to. Transparency in this regard and the knowledge that comes from that will benefit our economies. It will help prevent the very real and disastrous misallocation of capital we see today where banks and corporations enjoy the bounty of central bank largesse and government corporate welfare at the expense of citizens, small and medium size enterprises and the wider society.
For more information, visit their website or visit the token sale website
Read the whitepaper on their project from here
submitted by TokenMarket to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

WEPOWER REVIEW

Project overview
WePower is a blockchain-based green energy trading platform which enables renewable energy producers to raise capital by issuing their own energy tokens.
These tokens represent energy they commit to produce and deliver. Energy tokenization standardizes simplifies and opens globally currently existing energy investment ecosystem.
As a result energy producers can trade directly with the green energy buyers (consumers and investors) and raise capital by selling energy upfront, at below market rates. Energy tokenization ensures liquidity and extends access to capital.
Minimum investment = 100 USD in ETH
Token sale date = 1 Feb 2018
Soft CAP = 5 M USD
Hard Cap = 40M USD
Total Supply = 746 mil token
Total supply for sale = 463 mil. token
TEAM
I have individually researched every member of the team however I will not go too much into details. I like that every member and their current position is matching their background and previous experience.
Alongside them, they have different investors and advisors who are also having a good background backed by extensive experience in their field. You can find and verify every single one of the members on Linkedin and further research their records.
Below you can find some information around what I consider to be the core team members.
Nikolaj Martyniuk - Co-Founder, Energy background
10 years experience working in the energy sector. He has been building energy and solar plants as well as being involved in the energy import/export between countries. I checked his linked profile and almost his entire career has been focused on the natural production of energy and renewable energy projects.
Artūras Asakavičius - Co-Founder, Investment background Co-Founder and chairman of Lithuanian Finch Association. strong background in Law, practicing at one of the biggest firms in the Baltics, he is responsible for all finch blockchain and crypto related businesses and regulations. His Linkedin profile also match his skills with numerous endorsements for banking law, legal advice etc.
Kaspar Kaarlep – CTO, Energy background
Kaspar previously was the CTO of a large National DSO, and has worked on the green energy integration and Smart Grids challenge from different angles for 7 years. He was responsible for development and execution of the DSO strategic plan, and their Smart Grid technology roadmap as well as the management of the overall Information Technology and Operational Technology enterprise architecture.
Heikki Kolk – System architecture
Heikki is the Principal Consultant for Catapult Lab’s consulting services team. In this role, he leads the overall activity of our three consulting service offerings Support. Prior to working at Catapult Labs, Heikki worked for Elektrilevi, the largest distribution system operator in Estonia, holding different positions over 10 years.
He was responsible for defining control center use cases in all major IT development and implementation projects in Elektrilevi, including a customer information system, several asset management systems, and smart metering systems.
Kaspar and Heikki bring together a team of 12 energy engineers and programmers with a commitment to connect WePower to the energy infrastructure to become the new generation utility company.
Their Blockchain development is led by Jon Matonis (founding partner of Bitcoin Foundation), our token economy is structured with the help of Eyal Hertzog (chief product architect of the Bancor Protocol) and David Allen Cohen (smart grid innovator) helps with software matters.
WHITEPAPER
Wepower is a blockchain -based green energy-trading platform. How does it work ?
The energy producers are joining the WePower platform and agree to provide x amount of power over an agreed period of time.
They will issue their own energy token where 1 token = 1 kWh.
As a Wepower token holder you will have priority to participate at auctions and buy the energy at a discounted price. The auction opens to WPR token holders first , usually 48 hours in advance. Priority allocation for energy token auction is proportional to the amount of WPR the holder has.
After this period has elapsed, the remaining energy is offered to all WePower platform participants.
The lowest prices are set by the auctioning party using current and historical energy prices visible on the platform.
This way the energy producers will have access to capital so they can complete the project fast without having to wait for government subsidies, bank loans etc.
Furthermore all energy providers that will be using the platform to raise capital will donate at least 0.9% of the produced energy to the WPR token holders, forever. This incentive model is used so that investors are receiving a guaranteed return on their investment along with having access to auctions where they can buy energy at below market price and the potential increase in value of tokens over time.
In short, if you are holding WPR tokens they will accumulate energy which you can use in your house (assuming that WePower is operational in your country as an independent energy provider), sell it to the wholesale market for fiat or cash once the energy is produced, or sell it in advance on the WePower trading platform to any other user.
The WePower platform demo version is ready and can be accessed following this link: http://platform.wepower.network/.
Regarding the token sale, WePower is working with Bancor which will provide ultimate liquidity for token holders.
As of right now WePower is working closely with Elering (transmission operator) to launch a pilot tokenizing all Estonian energy sector. I believe this is possible as the country has only 1.3 million population as of 2018. It also helps that Estonia has been recognized as one of the most technology advanced country in the world.
The project is also supported by the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania due to its potential global impact and ability to solve emission problems.
CONCLUSION
Wepower is an exciting project that actually contributes to the energy sector by producing and encouraging the production and utilisation of green energy.
The project is backed up by a solid team with extensive experience in the energy sector which is also surrounded by powerful investors and advisors.
Furthermore, WePower is already working with the ministry of Lithuania and are looking to launch in April 2018 a country-wide energy tokenization pilot project in Estonia.
Personally I am excited that we can all make a difference in supporting the green energy sector and not leaving everything at the hands of governments and big corporations.
submitted by cryptoflorin to u/cryptoflorin [link] [comments]

Discuss re-branding cryptocurrencies as cryptocommodities

Thai central bank rules Bitcoin to be illegal
After reading this article about the Bank of Thailand banning bitcoin, I think it's more important than ever to re-brand bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as cryptocommodities.
I believe that calling bitcoin a cryptocurrency leads to a lot of confusion because the first question everyone asks when learning about it for the first time is "Who's it backed by?" Also, countries trying to protect the value of their own currency will try to block it as a competing currency (Thailand for example, and I expect to see something similar in Argentina since they already have strict controls on holding USD).
I think there is an inherent value in the block chain and the structure of bitcoin. Jon Matonis referred to bitcoin as a "math based commodity" in one of his articles.
I would love to listen to a discussion on the pro's and con's of marketing bitcoin as a commodity vs currency.
I'm imagining a day when bitcoin is traded on the CME and I can buy and sell bitcoin futures...
submitted by murclock to letstalkbitcoin [link] [comments]

Engadget takes a very pessimistic view on Bitcoin - Why do tech blogs not understand the value of bitcoin?

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 87%.
Jon Matonis, who helped set up the Bitcoin Foundation, was also involved in that London meeting to determine if Wright was indeed Nakamoto.
While you'd think it would have been simple to drop a single "Genesis block" Bitcoin to a journalist, Wright couldn't.
During an Ask Me Anything session in 2014, Dei expanded on this point, saying that Bitcoin was built to serve people "Who distrust flexible government monetary policies." As for his feelings on Nakamoto's identity, he says that "It doesn't matter too much, except to satisfy people's curiosity."
The creator of the platform also mined the first Bitcoins, a volume of money known as the "Genesis block." There's no concrete evidence as to the size of the genesis block, but at least one website has pegged it at around 1 million BTC. At current exchange rates, that's worth around $448 million, but it would have been worth twice as much at the currency's peak in late 2013.
The concern for people who are involved with the Bitcoin market is that Nakamoto has enough power to do a lot of damage to the currency.
Bitcoin has also failed to convince people outside of its community that there's any value in adopting it.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Bitcoin#1 Wright#2 Nakamoto#3 claim#4 people#5
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic only. Do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

The Future of Bitcoin

Is Bitcoin in fact the biggest disruptive technology since the Internet itself?
Is Bitcoin's real innovation its ‘Blockchain' technology which is being used to build a completely new way of interacting online?
Will Bitcoin provide the basis for the next generation of apps?
Speakers:
Jon Matonis- Executive Director, The Bitcoin Foundation
Stephan Tual- Chief Communications Officer, Ethereum
Niki Wiles- Community Relations, Counterparty
Preston Byrne- Adam Smith Institute (ASI) fellow and associate at Norton Rose Fulbright
Chair: Richard Boase- Cybersalon/UK Digital Currency Association
Advocates argue that Bitcoin has the capacity to address not simply money issuance but other crucial questions of trust, financial privacy, transparency and freedom of expression.
Critics claim that Bitcoin's inherent anonymity encourages money laundering, gambling and drug dealing. They also point to its wild volatility as evidence that it functions as a poor store of value that will make economic activity ultimately less productive.
At this Cybersalon we will be asking what have we learnt from Bitcoin and where is it heading:
  1. What is 'Blockchain' technology and what are new applications are using it?
  2. Is Bitcoin likely to form the basis of the new Internet of Money and Trust?
  3. What is Bitcoin teaching us about global consensus, decentralisation and open source technologies?
So if currency is simply the first application for this Blockchain technology, what else is in the pipeline? Initiatives such as Ethereum, Coloured Coins, Mastercoin, Counterparty and Namecoin suggest decentralised stock, bond and equities markets, asset and property registration, notary services, DNS lookup system and more.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO PAY WITH BITCOIN, PLEASE VISIT cybersalon.org/bitcoinheading/
Bitcoin Background
Bitcoin (which is now known as a “Crypto currency” or Hidden Currency) has fluctuated from $0.0001 to US $1,200 in the span of 5 years. Advocates cite its capacity to be a truly global, digital currency- to lower remittance and cross border transfer costs particularly with regards to developing economies and its power to remove politics from the money supply. Its main attraction, they claim, is that all other banking and monetary systems are ‘pre-internet’ technologies but Bitcoin offers us the potential to build an entirely new system of global financial consensus, even acting as a global reserve currency.
Bitcoin 2.0
The value of the Bitcoin platform is that it can be used for other means than as a currency: for instance to transfer goods directly from person to person around the planet securely without third party verification. The way Bitcoin does this is through what is known as a peer to peer network, with these transactions being verified automatically by thousands of so called ‘Miners'. Bitcoin is not a company, and whilst Miners might act like employees, it was designed as an open standard protocol similar to http (web pages) or smtp (email), allowing anyone who wishes to to build companies, services and software to interact with it, and because Bitcoin functions a little bit like TCP/IP, owning a Bitcoin is akin to owning real-estate on the new internet, similar in some ways to owning name brand dot coms in the ‘90s.
what do you think this??
to score: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk
submitted by professorXY to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

It doesn't matter who created Bitcoin Or, 'Craig Wright’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week.'

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 87%.
Jon Matonis, who helped set up the Bitcoin Foundation, was also involved in that London meeting to determine if Wright was indeed Nakamoto.
While you'd think it would have been simple to drop a single "Genesis block" Bitcoin to a journalist, Wright couldn't.
During an Ask Me Anything session in 2014, Dei expanded on this point, saying that Bitcoin was built to serve people "Who distrust flexible government monetary policies." As for his feelings on Nakamoto's identity, he says that "It doesn't matter too much, except to satisfy people's curiosity."
The creator of the platform also mined the first Bitcoins, a volume of money known as the "Genesis block." There's no concrete evidence as to the size of the genesis block, but at least one website has pegged it at around 1 million BTC. At current exchange rates, that's worth around $448 million, but it would have been worth twice as much at the currency's peak in late 2013.
The concern for people who are involved with the Bitcoin market is that Nakamoto has enough power to do a lot of damage to the currency.
Bitcoin has also failed to convince people outside of its community that there's any value in adopting it.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Bitcoin#1 Wright#2 Nakamoto#3 claim#4 people#5
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic only. Do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

[Table] IAmA: IAM Peter Vessenes, Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation. AMAA!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2012-09-28
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Link to my post
Questions Answers
Most proponents of Bitcoin seem to believe that there will be a point where one coin exceeds a value of $100 or even $1000. Sure, that is definitely possible and I can accept that it may happen one day. However, since each coin has this intrinsic potential value.. why would anyone spend them on trivial stuff like food now? How can you spend something that you believe will continue to grow in value effectively to infinity? That seems like a fair complaint to me, in general. In practice, and as opposed to Krugman's thoughts on the matter, we have many thousands of happy Bitcoin transactors, I think people like to spend their bitcoins with others, give them away, and use them for things. I do know some Bitcoin businesses that try never to spend their coins. That said, we have had some periods like last year where EVERYBODY wished they'd spent their coins.. To my mind volatility is a worse 'evil' than being deflationary. As I said above, I think most government economists wish an inflationary currency (and many bitcoiners hate this, and talk a lot about how much they hate it), but I think there's definitely a place in the world for a deflationary value system. An interesting thought experiment for you -- if you forked the Bitcoin blockchain and changed issuance so that it tracked say, USD or USD/EUR inflation rates for issuance, would it have the same uptake or not?
Every once in a while I hear stories about security breaches including 240,000 bitcoins that went missing the other month. How do you ensure security of account holders funds? The practical security aspects of running Bitcoin businesses are a REAL need, and it's something we want to help on with advice, and possibly opt-in certification at some point. I say more about this elsewhere in the AMA.
Furthermore, most sites I've came upon that sell goods seem poorly managed and difficult to use. Is there a Bitcoin equivalent to sites like Ebay and Amazon? Re: bitcoin site usability -- I agree, it's often terrible! I'm not sure why this is, except to say that bitcoins make transacting online so easy that even people who can't afford a designer can do it.
A: How does the intrinsic non-fiat nature of the currency affect its susceptibility to market fluctuation? I.E. Better or worse stability than fiat currency? So far, because market cap is so low, (Roughly $100mm of value), Bitcoin exchange rates are highly susceptible to people pushing it around. This is really tough for everyone. There are a bunch of businesses that might not be viable until you have some exchange rate certainties that extend beyond a short (one day-ish) window.
B: What can be done to improve the resistance to massive fluctuations in value stemming from exchange market manipulation or normal use? There are some macro-economic things that could be done, like exchanges publishing all trades to a central area, and implementing locks if prices rise / fall too suddenly, but those all have their own effects to consider. I think the fundamental thing to do is help Bitcoin acceptance and uptake grow, increasing the size of the pie until there are a much smaller number of parties that could push the price around.
C: Is there anything that can be done to the standard to improve stability or is it all up to the markets to implement safeguards? So, we all do have a part in that stabilization for sure. There's also the angle of creating whole supply chains that are bitcoin denominated -- paying our staff in Bitcoins only is an attempt to work on that angle.
What do you say to people that claim Bitcoin is nothing but a pump-and-dump pyramid scheme designed to benefit it's creators? That they're sitting on a huge pile of bitcoins obtained by them before the currency was made available to the public when mining was far easier then dumping huge batches of Bitcoins destroying the price over and over again to enrich themselves and fuck everybody else? And that they get more chumps into the system to inflate the price again, by going around the internet and promoting Bitcoins as an alternative currency rather than a complete fraud? This borders on the troll-ish, but I will say that the Bitcoin network autosizes coin generation based on how many people wish to do it. That is, people opt in to make the coins and secure the network. Nobody is forced to.
Is the Bitcoin Foundation a non-profit, tax-exempt organization in the United States? Who among the directors and the board has experience running a non-profit? Why is the ED also a member of the board? How does the ED have the time to run the organization given his obligation to CoinLab? Why haven't I seen any of the involved parties at either of the last two Bitcoin conferences? Can we get somebody who isn't a white male involved? We're a 501(c)6, Washington DC Nonprofit.
I have experience launching a non-profit, hence my job.
ED's typically get a salary and work full time at the job; we didn't know if we'd have budget to pay someone who could operate such a thing, so we went with this structure. I anticipate that I will step down from being the ED at the earliest moment we know we have someone better to do it; running CoinLab is plenty of work for me.
Our assistant director Lindsay Holland is not a white male.
In general, Bitcoin is a white male sausage-fest, though. I urge you and all Bitcoiners everywhere to work on changing that.
What is the future of bitcoins? Do you think they will ever make government-issued currency obsolete? I don't know the future of Bitcoin, but I hope that I and the Foundation are a part of it!
I don't believe Bitcoin will ever obsolete a government currency, but I only speak for myself when I say that. Bitcoin is a fascinating and novel technology with a HUGE number of potential benefits to the world, so I'm into it. I don't see a government wishing to cede control of its currency to anything like the technocratic / consensus model that Bitcoins are governed by, though.
That said, I do hope that Bitcoins will be able to help people in areas of the world that need better money features. Mpesa is a great example of something that helps Kenyans (and people from a few other countries) by changing how money is used. Bitcoin has the potential to help people like that, all over the world, whether or not the 'market' is large enough in that country.
I personally think that sort of thing is SUPER exciting.
Could you describe the bitcoin foundation for me? Sure! It's a trade organization, member-driven. Its goal is to promote, protect and help standardize Bitcoin. Our initial goals are to provide funding for the core development team, run a 2013 Silicon Valley Conference, and create some opt-in certification methods and best practices for businesses dealing with Bitcoin.
Join us.. :)
Standardize? I can tell you hate our goals, so I won't spend a long time trying to convince you. But, I will say that businesses often need a long, secure timeframe to make investment decisions, and they need to have some sense that what they work on or invest in will be roughly similar at the end of their investment to the beginning.
Why do you want to "standardize"? For instance, imagine ebay deciding to take bitcoins. The person-hours to get that done inside ebay are staggering to imagine, from wallet scalability issue to accounting treatments, refunds, ... It would be a major endeavor.
What gives you that authority? It would be great for bitcoin if ebay took bitcoins. Seriously great, but they can't right now until they feel there is some generally stable path going forward.
Why is the core development team so deserving of funding when they can't even make a decent client? You might hate everything about that, and that's cool. I urge you to go ahead, fork the code, advocate as much as you like for something else. Bitcoin's free, both the protocol and the software. Nobody is stopping you.
Is there any legal action to be done if someone steals your bitcoins? Yep, if you're in the US, file a police report, and call FBI Cybercrimes division.
As an individual member of the Bitcoin Foundation, what do I get? Any perks or privileges? Email aliases, voting rights, a newsletter, etc? Or are these memberships mostly a way of providing financial support to the foundation? The bylaws are up now, so you can read in great detail what the organization will provide its members: Link to github.com
In short, though, rights to vote people on / off the board of the Foundation, soon access to private forums, probably discounts to the bitcoin 2013 conference, happiness at supporting the dev team.
I would like to provide email aliases, we've got Patrick and Jon working on any possible gotchas there, though.
Many aren't taking bitcoin seriously because of the security issues some have had. What steps are you taking to legitimize this currency? Like Jeff says below, I would distinguish between fundamental protocol security and security practices.
Bitcoins fundamental protocol security seems pretty good at this point; I'm sure we'll all be keeping an eye on that quite intently into the future.
Practical Security has been, largely, terrible in the Bitcoin space for most businesses, Mt. Gox perhaps excepted. The amount of work it takes to secure 80 byte strings that may be valued in the million dollar range is non trivial. Think securing missile codes as to the level of security needed.
Many bitcoin businesses can't afford (or don't wish to) this sort of security. I'm hoping we can provide some tools and pointers for these businesses and their users to help people understand what they're getting into when they transact with a bitcoin business, and what their risks are.
The Bitcoin Foundation Membership (VIP) fees are definitely disproportionate. Why? Are we now heading for a two-tier bitcoin community? We got requests from large supporters to make a more expensive membership tier. I'm slow, but not so slow that I said 'no'.
I'm slow, but not so slow that I said 'no'. - So you said 'YES'? Someone said "Please make higher corporate member fees: Linux Foundation Top Tier member fees are $500k. Your plan is too low."
I said "OK, Thank you for that advice. We should do that."
Is the foundation primarily focused on US or also europe and the rest of the world? Right now Jon Matonis is considered our "Europe Expert" on the board. There's a huge amount of work to do just in keeping track of how Bitcoin is categorized and regulated around the world. I would expect the Foundation to put some time and energy into helping with that process, but it's not our first goal.
What would you or the Fundation do if the government declares Bitcoin ilegal? Advocate that such a thing is silly, unenforceable, and counterproductive.
Thats no answer to the question. Have you got any plans for the "unthinkable"? That really is what I would do. What do you suggest?
What are your thoughts on transparency of the foundation? How much revenue is there and how it is spent, will that info be public? We're aiming to be highly transparent. I proposed today that we publicize our cold wallet public keys so that people can check our balances. This got pushed back a month while we work on some logistics. I will follow up about this, though. I think having auditable books from day one is really cool.
What are your thoughts on fiat currency? I love it and wish more of it. I'm totally grateful that nations have standardized and created currencies for their people, so that I can travel and buy stuff without worrying about the reputability of a local bank when I go to exchange my money.
I read something recently about a Bitcoin based debit card system. How is that coming along? I don't know, but I want one! The Foundation would like one, too. We are trying to run the Foundation with only Bitcoins, so it would be nice to fuel up a debit card for some expenses.
Create an opt-in certification process for Bitcoin businesses. How will you be going about this? What will certification entail? TBD, But I am imagining that businesses could vet their processes and procedures against a set of published standards, pay for an audit, and then be able to help their users understand what level of security they provide, e.g. "Bronze certification -- the site could be trusted with 50 bitcoins of stored value per person."
Does the foundation intend to have control over bitcoin.org and thereby over the main distribution channel for Bitcoin-Qt? We're a member organization. Some of our members do have access to and influence over bitcoin.org and bitcoin-qt. I have no idea if they would like us to help manage bitcoin.org, since we just launched yesterday.
If the decision makers for bitcoin.org and bitcoin-qt want us to help out in those areas, I wouldn't mind. I don't think either of those things is super strategic to helping Bitcoin right now; there's more need for messaging and some financial security for the core team, and the other stuff we said we're going to work on this year. bitcoin.org and -qt publishing don't seem broken to me or risky right now.
Given that Mt Gox has a (rightfully deserved) place on he board, what steps can and will you be taking to ensure that independent exchanges are encouraged and not ignored? Also what steps, if any, can and will you take to ensure the public that the commercial interests of those on the board do not conflict with the decentralised ideals and paradigm of Bitcoin itself? I don't know how we'd encourage or ignore exchanges, since everyone is welcome to join.
I do think this individual / corporate angle is at the heart of the Bitcoin, though; it's got a lot of parties that care about it, passionately. Some are investing millions of dollars. Some are tirelessly advocating for Bitcoin. Many sit around and troll and waste people's time.
I guess that partly we expect our board members will act with integrity, and that if they aren't representing the needs of their member class, they'll get replaced with someone who will.
I also don't know how we would, practically, decentralize Bitcoin, even if we wished such a thing. I don't think anyone on the board thinks Bitcoin is doing badly. We're all really excited about it and want to help. I personally believe if corporations (a small group or just one) ever provably controlled Bitcoin, they would become vastly less appealing and useful. So, we're on watch.
Not as on watch as a paranoid bitcointalk forum troll wants us to be, but we're on watch.
Why do you require a real name and real address, when bitcoins core values are to be anonymous? The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW.
What is the current, largest obstacle when it comes to wider Bitcoin adoption? I think Bitcoin adoption is growing nicely. There seems to be a sort of stair-step function where people figure out something new and broadly appealing to do with them, and it makes a big jump. I expect we'll see that many times over the next five or ten years.
Doubts about the network's scalability, uncertain status about its legality or something else? Bitcoin's brand seems bad to me; mostly the highly publicized exchange attacks worry people. It's too hard to have a secure cold storage wallet for even a very smart individual. I'd like to see some of those things improved.
Does Bitcoin have any plan to combat criminals using the currency to purchase things on online black markets? I can't speak for Bitcoin, but the Foundation has no criminal combatant plans. We do want our members to use their real names and promise that they only engage in activities legal in their jurisdiction, though.
That's mostly just a way of us saying who we want to hang out with, and expressing some community values we think will help our organization be a success.
Did you expect for the Bitcoin concept to explode as it has? I sort of did, but I definitely didn't put my wallet behind that explosion. Sigh.
Also, where do you see it going in the future? I talk elsewhere in the AMA about what I'm hoping for Bitcoin.
Will the foundation be sponsoring Bitcoin software outside of Bitcoin.org? What do you mean? Like if Jeff Garzik made cool software that would help the Bitcoin world but didn't release it at bitcoin.org would we try and help him?
The answer is yes.
I.e., the Foundation would provide a service with recommendations such as wallet security for an exchange, but I don't think the Foundation should be in the business of "certifying". Yeah, there's an interesting set of questions there about certification. I would LOVE to see a certification that brought with it the ability to be insured against loss and theft. Think how nice it would be for an exchange or wallet business to be able to offer that insurance. That said, I don't know of any bitcoin company that has such insurance yet. I think we have some work to do vetting out the processes and procedures, and then some sales and relationship work with insurance companies first. At any rate, we won't be stumping up security for certified companies through the main Foundation corporate vehicle ever. But I think the membership will want to discuss what a good set of next steps is toward that goal, if we're all sold on trying to make it happen.
What's the advantage to using bitcoins over government issued currency, basically why should I invest my $US in bitcoins? Some people have ideological preferences for Bitcoins money issuance scheme.
Some are nerds, and like it for nerdy reasons.
Some just like being able to pay whom they choose when they choose.
Some deal with payment infrastructures that are scary (Paypal freezes are scary), or slow (wiring money in and out of small country central banks is REALLY slow).
Also, they're neat.
How does it feel to know that a kitten wearing a top hat has more upvotes than you? That kitten is so damn cute. I spent some of my AMA time going "AWWW"
How will you try to keep BIG businesses from buying their way into "THE" Bitcoin Foundation? Bitcoin is inherently free, it's peer to peer, it can be forked, it's not controlled by the Foundation, especially one that's one day old.
So, I look forward to large donations from BIG businesses. We will use that money to further the Foundation's mission. Our members will, no doubt, be highly engaged in discussions about what to do with large donations. I'm looking forward to it.
What is your opinion on Canada's new digital currency, "Mint Chip"? How does this affect Bitcoin? I don't know much about it, but I think it's cool from what I do know, (and is it technically flawed? I don't recall). I'm all for money system experimentation, as you might guess.
You are starting to get increased media/congressional notice. Are you at all worried about being shut down and prosecuted like E-Gold was? Who is we? The Foundation is a member organization, nothing else.
There are some bitcoin exchange operators that actively flout the same AML laws that got the E-Gold founders in trouble.
There are some that try hard to do the right thing, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Personally, I don't worry about the ones trying to comply, and I don't transact with the ones flouting the laws.
Why do you have different vote classes, is one class worth more then another? Corporate members vote their seats, Individual members vote theirs.
Anecdotally, there are fewer corporate members, so a corporate membership vote has a greater proportional influence over a board seat than an individual membership.
so a corporate membership vote has a greater proportional influence over a board seat than an individual membership. - So there may be poll when votes of both classes come together? Like asking ALL members to opt out changes to the source code? I would be stunned if we voted on source code, ever. I don't think anyone thinks that is in the remit of the Foundation.
Pragmatically, the dev team is one arm of bitcoin source code governance, and miners are the other, since they can refuse to work with code changes they don't like if they do it in bulk.
The board meets often, and should be listening to its constituents; sign up as a member, and then mail your appropriate rep. As a sample of what we discussed today: "Should we do an AMA? Who will get member signup confirmations out? Can we publicize Patrick's bylaws yet?" were the scintillating topics of conversation.
Will I be getting an e-mail with receipt for my payment confirming my membership subscription? Yes, we are ACTIVELY working on it. Apologies.
What's the dev's payroll? TBD, now that we know what our member signups are.
I don't know if we'll release payroll or budget numbers outside the membership -- something we have to discuss.
What power does this foundation have over Bitcoin? Why did you make Satoshi the founder without his permission? We have no power over Bitcoin whatsoever.
I think we felt a foundation that didn't somehow acknowledge Satoshi would be a bit churlish, like ignoring Linus completely while making the Linux Foundation. Satoshi is, as always, free to participate as he/she chooses.
Has there been a growth in algorithmic trading of Bitcoins in the past year? If so, is that growth in algos added stability to the Bitcoin Market? I have no idea. But I'm curious about this too!
Why hasn't (almost) anybody heard of you before today? I keep a low profile. Until yesterday. Also, I gave up on the forums a long time ago; not productive enough for me.
That was very informative, thanks. Not that hard to grasp when somebody spells it out. The reason you do it is to provide a second element of value to a chain of transactions; the first element of value is consensus -- what everyone else says happens.
Is there a reason for doing this? Or just a way to pace the grinding nature of mining bitcoins? The second, arguably more powerful one is provable computation time spent on creating the consensus. So you can look at a set of bitcoin transactions and say "Ah ha, that had roughly [say] $1mm worth of computation time put in to securing and validating it! I believe it's safe to consider my $55 transaction secure."
Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many people have applied so far? Yep. We'll release end of first-month member numbers in 29 days. :)
How does one go about buying bitcoins? Probably the fastest way is to ask a friend who has some.
Next would be to use a service like Link to bitinstant.com.
How long are terms for each board member? Two years.
Will the Bitcoin Foundation promote a Vulnerability Reward Program ? I would like to see that, but I think the first things to do in terms of importance are on our published list.
Will the funds for a permanent memberships be put into an endowment, or will they be spent immediately? We haven't discussed it. Budget discussions are next couple of weeks, now that we have our heads around some numbers.
We also have to discuss if the foundation wishes to go long bitcoin, or instead spend to its annual budget. All TBD; if you have opinions send them on to your member reps.
I'm curious about this too. I'm not sure I understand how they work entirely. Maybe somebody could Explain like i'm five... Totally. They are confusing; it's a truly novel solution. Essentially it mixes something non-intuitive and magical-seeming (public key cryptography) with something very hard to imagine a solution for (distributed timestamping among non-trusted parties).
We will be seeing the concept extended out into a number of technology arenas over the next 25 years I imagine. It's an incredibly powerful solution-space.
I spent maybe an hour on the wiki reading the FAQ and everything, and it still makes references to "blocks" and "mining blocks" and those that mine have the option of transaction fees.. and I'm still not really sure what is happening. Yep, like I said. I've been thinking hard about them for two years, I have a cryptography background, and I still have 'a-ha!' moments weekly, at the very least.
There are a couple pretty good bitcoin explanation videos out there, but I'm not up to date on what the best one is. Maybe someone helpful can post a link.
After establishing support for food and shelter for Gavin, will there be opportunities for other bitcoin developers to apply for grants - maybe for specific implementations or features desperately needed. I'd love it. I think Gavin will be working out the specifics of what we want to do. I'd LOVE to see money put into a huge test suite, personally.
Thank you for furthering the effort of Cryptocurrency, I have written several policy papers in this arena, and look forward to the day where the deep web stigma is removed from the currency. Thanks FapNowPayLater! We genuinely appreciate the support.
Last updated: 2012-10-02 22:30 UTC | Next update: 2012-10-03 04:30 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

Kaiser Report - BitCoin.avi Jon Matonis - YouTube Expert Explanation on How the Bitcoin Value Will Hit $25000 Analysts predicts Bitcoin price correction! Jon Matonis on Bitcoin and crypto-currencies

Jon Matonis – The Fincen Whistleblowers: . Bitcoin Foundation board member Jon Matonis (@JonMatonis) writes a post on how the financial surveillance also occurring is no secret.Excerpts: “T he Fincen bureau conducts all of its surveillance activity out in the open and in plain sight, probably for its effect as a deterrent. Fincen even recruits banks and other agent financial institutions The Forbes E-book On Bitcoin Secret Money: Living on Bitcoin in the Real World, by Forbes staff writer Kashmir Hill, can be bought in Bitcoin or legal tender. Follow author on Twitter . Jon Matonis Jon Matonis is a board advisor to start-ups in: Bitcoin, cryptography, gaming, mobile and prepaid. Jon Matonis was Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation until December 2014 and served as a board director for the group from its 2012 inception to the time he assumed the executive director position in 2013. Originally published at The Monetary Future on November 25, 2011. No one really sends or receives bitcoin. They merely transfer their ownership and specific control rights to the block chain on the giant public ledger in the cloud. It’s like an air guitar. The bitcoin itself exists because we all say that it exists. The […] Jon Matonis. Matonis is known in the cryptocurrency industry as the founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation, which is one of the first organizations dedicated to providing funding for

[index] [24256] [4870] [22135] [29770] [28207] [8136] [8451] [27874] [24356] [12392]

Kaiser Report - BitCoin.avi

bitcoin value graph bitcoin currency day trading bitcoin ... Stuff That Interests Me with Jon Matonis - How big can bitcoin get? - Duration: 24:08. Dominic Frisby Comedy Videos 14,189 views. This week we had the honour of being joined by Jon Matonis. Jon is an absolute veteran in the world of crypto, and the founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation. Episode 118: GoldMoney's Andy Duncan talks to Jon Matonis of the Bitcoin Foundation who... Skip navigation Sign in. Search. Loading... Close. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue How to value a bitcoin - Duration: 8:55. Money Insider 149,242 views. 8:55. What is Blockchain - Duration: ... Stuff That Interests Me with Jon Matonis - How big can bitcoin get? The Monetary Future is a leading economics blog at the intersection of free banking, cryptography, and digital currency. Jon Matonis is a Founding Director o...

Flag Counter