Daily Archives: April 23, 2017

If Bitcoin stands any chance of growing, it needs to be known. This is where Bitcoin evangelists come in, who are responsible for promoting a wider scale adoption and use of the cryptocurrency. The initial signs are promisingas the cryptos awareness and ownership is going up. Still these are drops in the ocean if Bitcoin -or any cryptocurrency- is toreally succeed.

I have drawn religious parallels to Bitcoin in the past, and this is no exception. A traditional evangelist is an individual who goes into areas that has generally low densities of their religious faith and they attempt to convert as many of the people who live and work there. They are not dissimilar to a sort of religious, traveling salesperson. They go where they are needed to spread the word.

While I have neither the time nor the desire to comment on whether or not religions should be doing that sort of thing, I do think that Bitcoin can benefit from this sort of direct and targeted marketing of itself. A Bitcoin Evangelist, then, is an individual who approaches businesses, communities, and individuals who may not necessarily be aware of or convinced by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Whether it is a business looking to a secure payment solution, a marketing firm looking to bring itself into the digital era, or a local community center trying to teach some of its members more about computing and the Internet, Bitcoin Evangelists are badly needed. A great way to look at it is by subtracting the percent of the population that knows about or owns Bitcoin, then see for yourself the vast expanses of opportunity.

So you want to do your part and help spread the word, but do not know exactly how to get started. Well it is not as daunting of a task as you may expect, but it is still an important one. You do not have to be the next Satoshi Nakamoto or Gavin Andresen to be able to bring Bitcoin into peoples lives. The Merkle has posted a few posts about commonly asked questions that you can arm yourself with to field the questions you are likely to hear.

One way that I like to disseminate information about Bitcoin is via various workplace enrichment programs. Many offices and employers have something similar, and it may be worth exploring how you can teach a Bitcoin Beginners class. The first time I held a rather informal version of this at a workplace of mine, I was surprised by the turnout and engagement. Many people want to learn, but more than anything they want someone to teach them.

Similarly, community centers that offer computer classes, colleges whose departments are searching for a speaker, and various other meetup groups may be keen to have a Bitcoin evangelist like you come and speak to them about the future of currency.

What I mean to say here is that you do not need to be the most knowledgeable about FinTech or the code behind cryptos themselves, people just need to understand the basics of how Bitcoin works and how to use it. However, you do need to put in the effort to help grow this community and push this currency into wider adoption. We need more Bitcoin Evangelists.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

Originally posted here:
The Need for Bitcoin Evangelists and How to Be One - The Merkle

Bitcoin inspires hope among many of its owners, investors, and users. Its culture is deeply steeped in the hopes of being your own bank and not having to rely on third parties such as government and financial institutions to guarantee, protect, and transfer your wealth. However while I love Bitcoin and want to believe in these sort of ideals as well, more and more I feel like Bitcoin may suffer some very similar problems that fiat economies have.

This is one of the most troubling aspects of Bitcoin that I can think of. Were approaching having mined into existence about 80 percent of the 21 Million Bitcoin hard limit. Even though that limit will not be hit until about 2140 well beyond my and everyone reading this articles death -barring some insane medical advancements-, the percentage of new coins that will be made available will be lower and lower.

I do not think that I am the only one who thinks that Bitcoins price will continue to explode as the available supply dwindles either. That is where the heart of this problem may be for me: Larger concentrations of coins will be in the hands of fewer people.

I believe that the individuals who have the fortitude and insight to be hodling onto their coins deserve to be rewarded for their risk. It is also my hope that I am hodling more coins if/when the price skyrockets. This will create Bitcoin oligarchs though. Those who bought in or mined early will become immensely wealthy and powerful.

Regardless of good intention, concentration of power like that historically has not worked out well. We also see large wealth disparity in our world today -which is still mostly dealing in fiats- and the levels of civil unrest that it engenders. I think that Bitcoin may share this problem and may even have it worse considering how low the population of Bitcoin users is.

Miners are necessary for processing transactions and bringing new coins into the economy. However the increasing difficulty of blocks and the insatiable thirst for electricity creates situations where only large mining farms and pools are even able to put up the hashrates needed to grab those blocks.

This is centralized. Im far from the first person to realize or point this out, but it does mean that the Bitcoin network is starting to form these sorts of things it meant to free us from. Were trending toward having very few holding the (metaphorical) keys to the coins.

As reward halving continues, even more of these pools and farms will shut down, again leading to even more centralization of the network. It would lead us closer to a system not too far from what we have today.

While Bitcoin has many similar problems to the current prevailing financial systems it also has a very unique one: Lost Coins. This is when a wallet private key is lost and the coins in that wallet are unable to be accessed, even by the owner. While projects like the Large Bitcoin Collider may be looking for ways of cracking keys, it is generally agreed that these coins are gone until the private key is found or remembered. This adds a dynamic to Bitcoin that Banks and Governments do not really have: hard deflation. Governments and banks can always print more money. Bitcoin will only have 21 Million. Ever. So any lost coins or fraction of coins will be 21 Mill minus that amount. This could even lead to a further exacerbation of the wealth disparity problem I outlined before.

Bitcoin is a radical take on what economies should look like: trustless, secure, and reliable. However it still seems to have to address and move away from the pitfalls that our current financial system has created. To continue further without trying to address these would be foolish in my opinion.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

See the original post here:
Bitcoin Is Not Immune to All Fiat Problems - The Merkle

Bitcoin and cyber-terrorism are on prime time once more thanks to the most recent season finale of The Good Fight. As well, the digital currencywill soon be featured in the My Money episode of Dark Net.

Last week,in the first season finale of The Good Fight, an American legal and political drama, Bitcoin took center stage. The episode, calledChaos, could be an important part of the shows next season after the series was renewed for a second in March.

Technology lawyer and Bitcoin creator Dylan Stack, played by Jason Biggs, asks show star Diane to represent him. He is the creator of Bitcoin. He tells her he believes he is being framed for an upcoming cyber attack against Chicagos power grid.Stack has appeared as the bitcoin on The Good Wife,from which The Good Fight spun off.

The law firm Reddick, Boseman, & Kolstad, known for its police brutality cases, represents Stack. Eventually, however, the malware infects the governments computers and blocks access to the power grid. The Fedssuspect the law firm had a role.

Stack doesnt come forward to authorities. He works instead to uncover who planted the malware on his computer, suspecting it was someone he chats with on 4chan (since the creator of Bitcoin chats on 4chan). Stack the founder of Bitcoin is ultimately arrested by the FBI. The blackout hits at the same time.

The episode, called Chaos is set amid bi-annual reviews at law firm Reddick, Boseman and Kolstad. Lucca receives good reviews.

The Good Wife featured a Bitcoin episode, as well. In Season 3 Episode 13, Bitcoin for Dummies, the show dedicated awhile to explaining the digital currency technology based on the blockchain. The Good Fight doesnt take this path, focusing in on the action instead. In The Good Wifeepisode, bitcoin featured three inventors. In that episode, Biggs character assures he is Bitcoins representative.

Bitcoin recently appeared will appear in an upcoming episode of Dark Net. The episode, which will be named My Money, could have gone in several different directions, as that showsproducers discussed the possibility of showcasing Venezuela Bitcoin miners.

We originally wanted to interview bitcoin miners in Venezuela who are really risking a lot to mine for bitcoin because money there is so worthless and bitcoin still retains value. So it was a really, really interesting story of survival that you wouldnt think of because bitcoin is typically associated with the darknet and illicit activities, and this was a completely different take on it, Adi Kochavi, president of Vocativ Films and executive producer for Dark Net, said. Im definitely holding onto this idea.

Featured image from Shutterstock.

Here is the original post:
The Good Fight Season Finale Ends with Return of 'Bitcoin Creator' - CryptoCoinsNews

Some 70% of miners have now made a decision on whether to support segregated witnesses (segwit) or Bitcoin Unlimited, a proposal which simply increases the blocksize as set by nodes and miners. Its not clear what the other 30% of miners are waiting for, but it will be interesting to see what they do decide once they get around to exercising their duty.

If all go for segwit, it would give the proposal some 60%. Far off from a 95% threshold usually used, but that was always unrealistic in any, even slightly, contentious setting. Its not too far from 75%, but conceptually, if segwit does reach 60%, it would be reasonable to say after lengthy debate a decision has been made and thus should be supported regardless of views.

If all of the 30% instead support Bitcoin Unlimited, the client would gain some 70% of the hashrate. Not far from 75% and, again, regardless of views, after so much debate one has no choice, but to accept the decision of what would be an overwhelming majority.

In either case, both sides might dispute the end decision, but intellectually, they would have no standing nor any persuasive power for they would look no different than the not my president protestors who thought they can create their own fictitious reality.

Its unlikely all of the remaining 30% would decide in favor of just one proposal. If we split them in half, that would give segwit 47% while Bitcoin Unlimited would have around 53%. A very tight result, but, a potential outcome within predictable range as the matter is contentious.

The question now rises whether the 47% should accept the decision of the 53% or whether they should split? If they do split, which one is to be called bitcoin? If, instead, they decide to not solve the problem at all, in effect rejecting both proposals, due to the fear of a split and its potential ensuing chaos, then what is the wider public to think of an expensive and slow bitcoin that cant solve its problems?

Rationally, the name bitcoin should go to the chain with 53% of the hashrate since bitcoin relies on the honesty of 51% of miners. If the matter is so contentious, then at least some of the 47% will probably split, which is their right. However, they need to differentiate themselves, but what if they dont, what if they call themselves bitcoin?

Here, the persuasive power of conventions and norms usually assists. Just as the not my president protestors, they can call themselves bitcoin, but no one should take them seriously because, objectively, bitcoin is the chain with more than 51% of miners unless such miners are objectively acting maliciously which clearly is not the case in this scalability debate where a genuine disagreement of opinion exists.

The not my president protestors can, of course, go to California and declare independence, but they obviously wont be able to call California as USA. Likewise, the minority has the right to split without requiring any permission, but they cant call themselves bitcoin. They can call themselves Bitcoin Core, or BCC; or Bitcoin Unlimited with ticker BTU, depending on which one is minority with the majority one remaining as bitcoin or BTC.

Norms and conventions are not easily enforceable, but they have power because non-adherence leads to chaos. If the president, for example, does not uphold a judicial ruling, he risks revolution.

Likewise, if some exchanges call a minority chain as bitcoin, then the entire currency is put into question, risking its complete downfall, not to mention the ensuing chaos.

As such, adhering to simple norms and conventions would be in the interest of everyone, including the minority chain, which can happily operate on its own network and fairly compete in the market, instead of risking its own downfall and that of bitcoin.

The 30% of miners who have not decided, therefore, should get on with it. After now two years of endless arguing, and after some 70% have decided, there is no excuse for the other miners to keep sitting on the fence.

Just signal for segwit or Bitcoin Unlimited and lets end this constant arguing, stagnation, transaction delays, increased fees, etc.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are solely that of the author and do not represent those of, nor should they be attributed to CCN.

Featured image from Shutterstock.

Read more here:
How Does Bitcoin Reach a Decision? - CryptoCoinsNews

The US governments ongoing extensive surveillance on the global banking system and payment transfers is demonstrating an urgent necessity of a decentralized financial network such as bitcoin.

Over the past few months, various organizations including Wikileaks and Shadow Brokers have exploited most of the malpractices of the National Security Agency of the US. One of the recent tools of the NSA that was leaked and exploited on the dark web was the NSAs surveillance tool on the Swift global banking system.

Government agencies and law enforcement are required to undergo a lengthy process of filing a complaint and request to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (Swift) in order to gain necessary financial information of certain bank accounts of businesses and individuals.

With a surveillance and hacking tool however, the NSA can surpass the above mentioned process by simply gaining access to the actual Swift network without alarming its system and infrastructure. According to representatives of Shadow Brokers, a hacking group that has leaked many pieces of malware in the past, the hacking tool of the NSA allows the US government to surveil financial transactions settled within the Swift network with full transparency.

Matt Suiche, founder of the United Arab Emirates-based cybersecurity firm Comae Technologies, said in an interview with Reuters:

If you hack the service bureau, it means that you also have access to all of their clients, all of the banks.

While some security analysts and firms including EastNets denied the claims of Shadow Brokers, prominent whistleblowers and security experts including Edward Snowden explained that if the exploitation of the NSA hacking tool by the security firm Shadow Brokers is in fact true, it could be described as the Mother of All Exploits.

In the meantime, Swift announced that its cyber security and research team were not able to find any evidences to conclusively determine the surveillance allegation against the US government.

We have no evidence to suggest that there has ever been any unauthorized access to our network or messaging services, said the representatives of Swift.

Whether the US government actually utilized the NSAs hacking tool to surveil the Swift network without permission from Swift and its clients is not the major issue. The main problem is that such hacking tools exist and they are capable of unraveling transactions settled across the world.

Any centralized financial networks such as Swift impose such vulnerability, as any network, server or database connected to the Internet is vulnerable to hacking attacks, surveillance and data breaches, if it is not designed to be immutable or decentralized, unlike bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Each transaction on the bitcoin blockchain is identified with cryptographic proof and it can be accessed on the bitcoin blockchain. Most importantly, because the bitcoin blockchain is public, it cannot be manipulated by a government agency like the NSA with sophisticated hacking tools.

Although there exists strict Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer systems in place on the majority of the worlds bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchanges, government agencies and law enforcement agents must go through proper channels to obtain the data.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

Follow this link:
US Government Hacks Global Bank System, Neccesity of Bitcoin - The Merkle

Forbes

From Here To Where? Bitcoin And The Future Of Cryptocurrency Forbes There's a number of reasons why cryptocurrencies are so inherently popular. They are safe, anonymous and utterly decentralized. Unlike conventional currency, they are not controlled or regulated by some singular authority, their flow is determined ... What's keeping cryptocurrencies from mass adoption? | TechCrunchTechCrunch all 3 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
From Here To Where? Bitcoin And The Future Of Cryptocurrency - Forbes