# Satoshi to BCH (Satoshi to Bitcoincash) | convert

• Satoshi to BCH (Satoshi to Bitcoincash) | convert
• Satoshi to bitcoin conversion calculator | Finder.com
• Bitcoin Calculator - Convert Bitcoin into any World Currency
• Bitcoin to Satoshi Conversion
• Bitcoin Satoshi => USD
##### What is Satoshi? Satoshi to Bitcoin Conversion

 ​ https://preview.redd.it/ewvuc659yzz41.jpg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4177a9f87151e8bcdcca973c845fc212b3975e0b As a cryptocurrency enthusiast, you need to understand what satoshi is, how to convert Satoshi to Bitcoin, Satoshi to BTC converters, the best way to value your portfolio (with Satoshi or BTC) and many other details. Check out the link below to get a full understanding of Satoshi and how it relates to Bitcoin. https://remitano.com/forum/post/1268-what-is-satoshi-satoshi-to-bitcoin-conversion?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=english submitted by Dollypalton to remitano [link] [comments]

##### Bitcoin vs Satoshi: A different way to think

have a theory.. I am curious to get others opinions of it.

long story...
I was having a debate with a fellow crypto enthusiast like myself we did not see eye to eye.
I feel like the general public is having a hard time accepting the value of a bitcoin due to the fact of its unobtainability for most. People don't want to give up 100s to 1000s of one thing to get a fraction of another like bitcoin. They have grown up thinking a fraction of something is very little and not valueable but for Bitcoin it is not the case.
We all know that a Bitcoin can be broken down into something as small as a Satoshi.
Why not use this as the base measure instead of a Bitcoin which is the largest?

I feel people would be a lot more willing to accept using a currency when your talking about it in a whole value like Satoshi and not a fractional value like a Bitcoin. I think this is possibly why mass adoption really hasn't occurred. Why not buy/sell/exchange in Satoshi. Or even possibly come up with a name for something in between a Bitcoin and a satoshi

I believe a lot more people would be amenable spending $1 for 18000 satoshi (18ksat) or 18uBTC than for 0.00018 BTC The link below you can play around with converting https://www.finder.com/satoshi-to-bitcoin-conversion-calculator I believe it will be much more important to think like this when Bitcoin becomes$100,000 and more a coin. We need a more mass population acceptable unit of measure for bitcoin for an easier mass adoption
or maybe something like this could work
1 Satoshi = 1sat
10 Satoshi = 10sat
100 Satoshi = 100sat 1,000 Satoshi = 1ksat
10,000 Satoshi = 10ksat
100,000 Satoshi = 100ksat
1,000,000 Satoshi = 1Msat
10,000,000 Satoshi = 10Msat
100,000,000 Satoshi = 1BTC
or we could take out the fractions out of Bitcoin by doing it a similar way 0.00000001 bitcoin = 10 nBTC
0.00000010 bitcoin = 100 nBTC
0.00000100 bitcoin = 1 uBTC
0.00001000 bitcoin = 10 uBTC
0.00010000 bitcoin = 100 uBTC
0.00100000 bitcoin = 1 mBTC
0.01000000 bitcoin = 1 cBTC
0.10000000 bitcoin = 1 dBTC
1.00000000 bitcoin = 1 BTC
Long story short is we need a way to measure a unit of Bitcoin not as a fraction but as a whole number which the general public could much more easily accept.
Agree or disagree or how would be a good way to implement something ?
Edit 1BTC = # of Satoshi

##### bitcoin-to-satoshi conversion tool

Being still somewhat new to altcoins, two things...
1. Out of all the altcoins, doge and blackcoin have caught my attention. Doge because the folks there are so welcoming and because they're just fun! Blackcoin because it seems as though the BlackCoin folks are really onto something new and innovative. Anyone can make a new coin, but to truly make a NEW coin that has something to add, that's what matters.
2. Dealing with small currencies can get messy. One too few zeros and you're out a bunch of money. So, I made this simple converter. It's nothing special, but it helps me. Might help someone else somewhere along the line too.

##### New lows in r/bitcoincashsv

A while ago I had what was actually quite a constructive conversation with cryptorebel which led to me being unbanned from bitcoincashsv as I was doing my best to maintain constructive conversations with the members there. Since then I've continued to do the same, but today apparently I fell foul of the law.
u/m_murfy has taken it upon himself to ban me for 'advocating the use of decentralized technology to break the law.' because I suggested that if we're holding developers of a decentralised exchanges accountable for bypassing KYC/AML, then we should hold Satoshi accountable for the same with his creation of bitcoin in the first place.
The reason you actually gave completely contradicts the post for which you banned me, which was me answering a question and giving an opinion, which you happen to disagree with.
All I have done is offer conflicting views to your own to which you are unable to respond. Is this is how you think you will nurture your superior technology to take over the world, I wager you will be in for a very rude awakening, and won't even have the capacity to admit you are wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if BSV somehow takes over the world and everything you've said rings true I will happily accept it, but until then I thought we could have constructive discussions for the wider benefit of anyone else participating or reading.
u/zhell and u/eatmybitcorn, you are guys that I've had constructive discussions with across both boards and despite having fundamental disagreements . How do you feel about this?

##### RIP HAL FINNEY "His last post on a BTC Forum"

I thought I'd write about the last four years, an eventful time for Bitcoin and me.
For those who don't know me, I'm Hal Finney. I got my start in crypto working on an early version of PGP, working closely with Phil Zimmermann. When Phil decided to start PGP Corporation, I was one of the first hires. I would work on PGP until my retirement. At the same time, I got involved with the Cypherpunks. I ran the first cryptographically based anonymous remailer, among other activities.
Fast forward to late 2008 and the announcement of Bitcoin. I've noticed that cryptographic graybeards (I was in my mid 50's) tend to get cynical. I was more idealistic; I have always loved crypto, the mystery and the paradox of it.
When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list, he got a skeptical reception at best. Cryptographers have seen too many grand schemes by clueless noobs. They tend to have a knee jerk reaction.
I was more positive. I had long been interested in cryptographic payment schemes. Plus I was lucky enough to meet and extensively correspond with both Wei Dai and Nick Szabo, generally acknowledged to have created ideas that would be realized with Bitcoin. I had made an attempt to create my own proof of work based currency, called RPOW. So I found Bitcoin facinating.
When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them.
Today, Satoshi's true identity has become a mystery. But at the time, I thought I was dealing with a young man of Japanese ancestry who was very smart and sincere. I've had the good fortune to know many brilliant people over the course of my life, so I recognize the signs.
After a few days, bitcoin was running pretty stably, so I left it running. Those were the days when difficulty was 1, and you could find blocks with a CPU, not even a GPU. I mined several blocks over the next days. But I turned it off because it made my computer run hot, and the fan noise bothered me. In retrospect, I wish I had kept it up longer, but on the other hand I was extraordinarily lucky to be there at the beginning. It's one of those glass half full half empty things.
The next I heard of Bitcoin was late 2010, when I was surprised to find that it was not only still going, bitcoins actually had monetary value. I dusted off my old wallet, and was relieved to discover that my bitcoins were still there. As the price climbed up to real money, I transferred the coins into an offline wallet, where hopefully they'll be worth something to my heirs.
Speaking of heirs, I got a surprise in 2009, when I was suddenly diagnosed with a fatal disease. I was in the best shape of my life at the start of that year, I'd lost a lot of weight and taken up distance running. I'd run several half marathons, and I was starting to train for a full marathon. I worked my way up to 20+ mile runs, and I thought I was all set. That's when everything went wrong.
My body began to fail. I slurred my speech, lost strength in my hands, and my legs were slow to recover. In August, 2009, I was given the diagnosis of ALS, also called Lou Gehrig's disease, after the famous baseball player who got it.
ALS is a disease that kills moter neurons, which carry signals from the brain to the muscles. It causes first weakness, then gradually increasing paralysis. It is usually fatal in 2 to 5 years. My symptoms were mild at first and I continued to work, but fatigue and voice problems forced me to retire in early 2011. Since then the disease has continued its inexorable progression.
Today, I am essentially paralyzed. I am fed through a tube, and my breathing is assisted through another tube. I operate the computer using a commercial eyetracker system. It also has a speech synthesizer, so this is my voice now. I spend all day in my power wheelchair. I worked up an interface using an arduino so that I can adjust my wheelchair's position using my eyes.
It has been an adjustment, but my life is not too bad. I can still read, listen to music, and watch TV and movies. I recently discovered that I can even write code. It's very slow, probably 50 times slower than I was before. But I still love programming and it gives me goals. Currently I'm working on something Mike Hearn suggested, using the security features of modern processors, designed to support "Trusted Computing", to harden Bitcoin wallets. It's almost ready to release. I just have to do the documentation.
And of course the price gyrations of bitcoins are entertaining to me. I have skin in the game. But I came by my bitcoins through luck, with little credit to me. I lived through the crash of 2011. So I've seen it before. Easy come, easy go.
That's my story. I'm pretty lucky overall. Even with the ALS, my life is very satisfying. But my life expectancy is limited. Those discussions about inheriting your bitcoins are of more than academic interest. My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy. I think they're safe enough. I'm comfortable with my legacy.

##### Wouldn't have raising the blocksize limit on Bitcoin been the FIRST EVER hard fork on Bitcoin?

I just got done conversating with u/nullc, and this seems to be true as far as I can tell. I had always assumed hard forks were part of bitcoin's history!
I am not saying there is necessarily a moralistic conclusion to make from this. What was Satoshi thinking putting a limit in bitcoin that had to be hard-forked out? Was he even thinking?
A hard fork is basically changing the rules of the network and joining a new network, not socially/subjectively, but on a technical level. You could almost say, on a philosophical level, that hard forking is breaking/violating causality, that the prior state of the chain didnt lead to the latter without centralized human intervention. (Of course socially, everyone can just call the hard fork version the real version, like what happened in Ethereum with the dao hack, its definitely possible, but its almost like having a new cryptocurrency).
I now have more understanding/sympathy with the small blocker view, i can see why this is controversial, and can be seen as a slippery slope.
Not that i agree BTC has any utility resulting from this, but damn what was satoshi thinking...
Why dont i see people arguing about this in particular, that the big blocker side basically wanted to force a hard fork on bitcoin?

##### Placing more emphasis on Sats

I have seen a post with this same idea on this sub before, but I think we should keep having the conversation. Since there are only 21m Bitcoins in existence, if mainstream adoption takes place 99% of the global population will not be able to hold whole coins. Therefore, it would make more sense to focus commerce from the perspective of say 100,000 satoshi rather than 0.001 Bitcoin.
I have even seen someone propose that we flip the terminology so that 100,000,000 “bitcoins” equal a whole “satoshi”.
Would this kind of approach make the protocol more palatable to a larger audience?

##### Dive Into Tendermint Consensus Protocol (I)

This article is written by the CoinEx Chain lab. CoinEx Chain is the world’s first public chain exclusively designed for DEX, and will also include a Smart Chain supporting smart contracts and a Privacy Chain protecting users’ privacy.
longcpp @ 20200618
This is Part 1 of the serialized articles aimed to explain the Tendermint consensus protocol in detail.
Part 1. Preliminary of the consensus protocol: security model and PBFT protocol
Part 2. Tendermint consensus protocol illustrated: two-phase voting protocol and the locking and unlocking mechanism
Part 3. Weighted round-robin proposer selection algorithm used in Tendermint project
Any consensus agreement that is ultimately reached is the General Agreement, that is, the majority opinion. The consensus protocol on which the blockchain system operates is no exception. As a distributed system, the blockchain system aims to maintain the validity of the system. Intuitively, the validity of the blockchain system has two meanings: firstly, there is no ambiguity, and secondly, it can process requests to update its status. The former corresponds to the safety requirements of distributed systems, while the latter to the requirements of liveness. The validity of distributed systems is mainly maintained by consensus protocols, considering the multiple nodes and network communication involved in such systems may be unstable, which has brought huge challenges to the design of consensus protocols.

## The semi-synchronous network model and Byzantine fault tolerance

Researchers of distributed systems characterize these problems that may occur in nodes and network communications using node failure models and network models. The fail-stop failure in node failure models refers to the situation where the node itself stops running due to configuration errors or other reasons, thus unable to go on with the consensus protocol. This type of failure will not cause side effects on other parts of the distributed system except that the node itself stops running. However, for such distributed systems as the public blockchain, when designing a consensus protocol, we still need to consider the evildoing intended by nodes besides their failure. These incidents are all included in the Byzantine Failure model, which covers all unexpected situations that may occur on the node, for example, passive downtime failures and any deviation intended by the nodes from the consensus protocol. For a better explanation, downtime failures refer to nodes’ passive running halt, and the Byzantine failure to any arbitrary deviation of nodes from the consensus protocol.
Compared with the node failure model which can be roughly divided into the passive and active models, the modeling of network communication is more difficult. The network itself suffers problems of instability and communication delay. Moreover, since all network communication is ultimately completed by the node which may have a downtime failure or a Byzantine failure in itself, it is usually difficult to define whether such failure arises from the node or the network itself when a node does not receive another node's network message. Although the network communication may be affected by many factors, the researchers found that the network model can be classified by the communication delay. For example, the node may fail to send data packages due to the fail-stop failure, and as a result, the corresponding communication delay is unknown and can be any value. According to the concept of communication delay, the network communication model can be divided into the following three categories:
• The synchronous network model: There is a fixed, known upper bound of delay $\Delta$ in network communication. Under this model, the maximum delay of network communication between two nodes in the network is $\Delta$. Even if there is a malicious node, the communication delay arising therefrom does not exceed $\Delta$.
• The asynchronous network model: There is an unknown delay in network communication, with the upper bound of the delay known, but the message can still be successfully delivered in the end. Under this model, the network communication delay between two nodes in the network can be any possible value, that is, a malicious node, if any, can arbitrarily extend the communication delay.
• The semi-synchronous network model: Assume that there is a Global Stabilization Time (GST), before which it is an asynchronous network model and after which, a synchronous network model. In other words, there is a fixed, known upper bound of delay in network communication $\Delta$. A malicious node can delay the GST arbitrarily, and there will be no notification when no GST occurs. Under this model, the delay in the delivery of the message at the time $T$ is $\Delta + max(T, GST)$.
The synchronous network model is the most ideal network environment. Every message sent through the network can be received within a predictable time, but this model cannot reflect the real network communication situation. As in a real network, network failures are inevitable from time to time, causing the failure in the assumption of the synchronous network model. Yet the asynchronous network model goes to the other extreme and cannot reflect the real network situation either. Moreover, according to the FLP (Fischer-Lynch-Paterson) theorem, under this model if there is one node fails, no consensus protocol will reach consensus in a limited time. In contrast, the semi-synchronous network model can better describe the real-world network communication situation: network communication is usually synchronous or may return to normal after a short time. Such an experience must be no stranger to everyone: the web page, which usually gets loaded quite fast, opens slowly every now and then, and you need to try before you know the network is back to normal since there is usually no notification. The peer-to-peer (P2P) network communication, which is widely used in blockchain projects, also makes it possible for a node to send and receive information from multiple network channels. It is unrealistic to keep blocking the network information transmission of a node for a long time. Therefore, all the discussion below is under the semi-synchronous network model.
The design and selection of consensus protocols for public chain networks that allow nodes to dynamically join and leave need to consider possible Byzantine failures. Therefore, the consensus protocol of a public chain network is designed to guarantee the security and liveness of the network under the semi-synchronous network model on the premise of possible Byzantine failure. Researchers of distributed systems point out that to ensure the security and liveness of the system, the consensus protocol itself needs to meet three requirements:
• Validity: The value reached by honest nodes must be the value proposed by one of them
• Agreement: All honest nodes must reach consensus on the same value
• Termination: The honest nodes must eventually reach consensus on a certain value
Validity and agreement can guarantee the security of the distributed system, that is, the honest nodes will never reach a consensus on a random value, and once the consensus is reached, all honest nodes agree on this value. Termination guarantees the liveness of distributed systems. A distributed system unable to reach consensus is useless.

## The CAP theorem and Byzantine Generals Problem

In a semi-synchronous network, is it possible to design a Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus protocol that satisfies validity, agreement, and termination? How many Byzantine nodes can a system tolerance? The CAP theorem and Byzantine Generals Problem provide an answer for these two questions and have thus become the basic guidelines for the design of Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus protocols.
Lamport, Shostak, and Pease abstracted the design of the consensus mechanism in the distributed system in 1982 as the Byzantine Generals Problem, which refers to such a situation as described below: several generals each lead the army to fight in the war, and their troops are stationed in different places. The generals must formulate a unified action plan for the victory. However, since the camps are far away from each other, they can only communicate with each other through the communication soldiers, or, in other words, they cannot appear on the same occasion at the same time to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, among the generals, there is a traitor or two who intend to undermine the unified actions of the loyal generals by sending the wrong information, and the communication soldiers cannot send the message to the destination by themselves. It is assumed that each communication soldier can prove the information he has brought comes from a certain general, just as in the case of a real BFT consensus protocol, each node has its public and private keys to establish an encrypted communication channel for each other to ensure that its messages will not be tampered with in the network communication, and the message receiver can also verify the sender of the message based thereon. As already mentioned, any consensus agreement ultimately reached represents the consensus of the majority. In the process of generals communicating with each other for an offensive or retreat, a general also makes decisions based on the majority opinion from the information collected by himself.
According to the research of Lamport et al, if there are 1/3 or more traitors in the node, the generals cannot reach a unified decision. For example, in the following figure, assume there are 3 generals and only 1 traitor. In the figure on the left, suppose that General C is the traitor, and A and B are loyal. If A wants to launch an attack and informs B and C of such intention, yet the traitor C sends a message to B, suggesting what he has received from A is a retreat. In this case, B can't decide as he doesn't know who the traitor is, and the information received is insufficient for him to decide. If A is a traitor, he can send different messages to B and C. Then C faithfully reports to B the information he received. At this moment as B receives conflicting information, he cannot make any decisions. In both cases, even if B had received consistent information, it would be impossible for him to spot the traitor between A and C. Therefore, it is obvious that in both situations shown in the figure below, the honest General B cannot make a choice.
According to this conclusion, when there are $n$ generals with at most $f$ traitors (n≤3f), the generals cannot reach a consensus if $n \leq 3f$; and with $n > 3f$, a consensus can be reached. This conclusion also suggests that when the number of Byzantine failures $f$ exceeds 1/3 of the total number of nodes $n$ in the system $f \ge n/3$ , no consensus will be reached on any consensus protocol among all honest nodes. Only when $f < n/3$, such condition is likely to happen, without loss of generality, and for the subsequent discussion on the consensus protocol, $n \ge 3f + 1$ by default.
The conclusion reached by Lamport et al. on the Byzantine Generals Problem draws a line between the possible and the impossible in the design of the Byzantine fault tolerance consensus protocol. Within the possible range, how will the consensus protocol be designed? Can both the security and liveness of distributed systems be fully guaranteed? Brewer provided the answer in his CAP theorem in 2000. It indicated that a distributed system requires the following three basic attributes, but any distributed system can only meet two of the three at the same time.
1. Consistency: When any node responds to the request, it must either provide the latest status information or provide no status information
2. Availability: Any node in the system must be able to continue reading and writing
3. Partition Tolerance: The system can tolerate the loss of any number of messages between two nodes and still function normally

https://preview.redd.it/1ozfwk7u7m851.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=fdee6318de2cf1c021e636654766a7a0fe7b38b4
A distributed system aims to provide consistent services. Therefore, the consistency attribute requires that the two nodes in the system cannot provide conflicting status information or expired information, which can ensure the security of the distributed system. The availability attribute is to ensure that the system can continuously update its status and guarantee the availability of distributed systems. The partition tolerance attribute is related to the network communication delay, and, under the semi-synchronous network model, it can be the status before GST when the network is in an asynchronous status with an unknown delay in the network communication. In this condition, communicating nodes may not receive information from each other, and the network is thus considered to be in a partitioned status. Partition tolerance requires the distributed system to function normally even in network partitions.
The proof of the CAP theorem can be demonstrated with the following diagram. The curve represents the network partition, and each network has four nodes, distinguished by the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. The distributed system stores color information, and all the status information stored by all nodes is blue at first.
1. Partition tolerance and availability mean the loss of consistency: When node 1 receives a new request in the leftmost image, the status changes to red, the status transition information of node 1 is passed to node 3, and node 3 also updates the status information to red. However, since node 3 and node 4 did not receive the corresponding information due to the network partition, the status information is still blue. At this moment, if the status information is queried through node 2, the blue returned by node 2 is not the latest status of the system, thus losing consistency.
2. Partition tolerance and consistency mean the loss of availability: In the middle figure, the initial status information of all nodes is blue. When node 1 and node 3 update the status information to red, node 2 and node 4 maintain the outdated information as blue due to network partition. Also when querying status information through node 2, you need to first ask other nodes to make sure you’re in the latest status before returning status information as node 2 needs to follow consistency, but because of the network partition, node 2 cannot receive any information from node 1 or node 3. Then node 2 cannot determine whether it is in the latest status, so it chooses not to return any information, thus depriving the system of availability.
3. Consistency and availability mean the loss of the partition tolerance: In the right-most figure, the system does not have a network partition at first, and both status updates and queries can go smoothly. However, once a network partition occurs, it degenerates into one of the previous two conditions. It is thus proved that any distributed system cannot have consistency, availability, and partition tolerance all at the same time.

The discovery of the CAP theorem seems to declare that the aforementioned goals of the consensus protocol is impossible. However, if you’re careful enough, you may find from the above that those are all extreme cases, such as network partitions that cause the failure of information transmission, which could be rare, especially in P2P network. In the second case, the system rarely returns the same information with node 2, and the general practice is to query other nodes and return the latest status as believed after a while, regardless of whether it has received the request information of other nodes. Therefore, although the CAP theorem points out that any distributed system cannot satisfy the three attributes at the same time, it is not a binary choice, as the designer of the consensus protocol can weigh up all the three attributes according to the needs of the distributed system. However, as the communication delay is always involved in the distributed system, one always needs to choose between availability and consistency while ensuring a certain degree of partition tolerance. Specifically, in the second case, it is about the value that node 2 returns: a probably outdated value or no value. Returning the possibly outdated value may violate consistency but guarantees availability; yet returning no value deprives the system of availability but guarantees its consistency. Tendermint consensus protocol to be introduced is consistent in this trade-off. In other words, it will lose availability in some cases.
The genius of Satoshi Nakamoto is that with constraints of the CAP theorem, he managed to reach a reliable Byzantine consensus in a distributed network by combining PoW mechanism, Satoshi Nakamoto consensus, and economic incentives with appropriate parameter configuration. Whether Bitcoin's mechanism design solves the Byzantine Generals Problem has remained a dispute among academicians. Garay, Kiayias, and Leonardos analyzed the link between Bitcoin mechanism design and the Byzantine consensus in detail in their paper The Bitcoin Backbone Protocol: Analysis and Applications. In simple terms, the Satoshi Consensus is a probabilistic Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus protocol that depends on such conditions as the network communication environment and the proportion of malicious nodes' hashrate. When the proportion of malicious nodes’ hashrate does not exceed 1/2 in a good network communication environment, the Satoshi Consensus can reliably solve the Byzantine consensus problem in a distributed environment. However, when the environment turns bad, even with the proportion within 1/2, the Satoshi Consensus may still fail to reach a reliable conclusion on the Byzantine consensus problem. It is worth noting that the quality of the network environment is relative to Bitcoin's block interval. The 10-minute block generation interval of the Bitcoin can ensure that the system is in a good network communication environment in most cases, given the fact that the broadcast time of a block in the distributed network is usually just several seconds. In addition, economic incentives can motivate most nodes to actively comply with the agreement. It is thus considered that with the current Bitcoin network parameter configuration and mechanism design, the Bitcoin mechanism design has reliably solved the Byzantine Consensus problem in the current network environment.

## Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance, PBFT

It is not an easy task to design the Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus protocol in a semi-synchronous network. The first practically usable Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus protocol is the Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) designed by Castro and Liskov in 1999, the first of its kind with polynomial complexity. For a distributed system with $n$ nodes, the communication complexity is $O(n2$.) Castro and Liskov showed in the paper that by transforming centralized file system into a distributed one using the PBFT protocol, the overwall performance was only slowed down by 3%. In this section we will briefly introduce the PBFT protocol, paving the way for further detailed explanations of the Tendermint protocol and the improvements of the Tendermint protocol.
The PBFT protocol that includes $n=3f+1$ nodes can tolerate up to $f$ Byzantine nodes. In the original paper of PBFT, full connection is required among all the $n$ nodes, that is, any two of the n nodes must be connected. All the nodes of the network jointly maintain the system status through network communication. In the Bitcoin network, a node can participate in or exit the consensus process through hashrate mining at any time, which is managed by the administrator, and the PFBT protocol needs to determine all the participating nodes before the protocol starts. All nodes in the PBFT protocol are divided into two categories, master nodes, and slave nodes. There is only one master node at any time, and all nodes take turns to be the master node. All nodes run in a rotation process called View, in each of which the master node will be reelected. The master node selection algorithm in PBFT is very simple: all nodes become the master node in turn by the index number. In each view, all nodes try to reach a consensus on the system status. It is worth mentioning that in the PBFT protocol, each node has its own digital signature key pair. All sent messages (including request messages from the client) need to be signed to ensure the integrity of the message in the network and the traceability of the message itself. (You can determine who sent a message based on the digital signature).
The following figure shows the basic flow of the PBFT consensus protocol. Assume that the current view’s master node is node 0. Client C initiates a request to the master node 0. After the master node receives the request, it broadcasts the request to all slave nodes that process the request of client C and return the result to the client. After the client receives f+1 identical results from different nodes (based on the signature value), the result can be taken as the final result of the entire operation. Since the system can have at most f Byzantine nodes, at least one of the f+1 results received by the client comes from an honest node, and the security of the consensus protocol guarantees that all honest nodes will reach consensus on the same status. So, the feedback from 1 honest node is enough to confirm that the corresponding request has been processed by the system.

https://preview.redd.it/sz8so5ly7m851.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=d472810e76bbc202e91a25ef29a51e109a576554
For the status synchronization of all honest nodes, the PBFT protocol has two constraints on each node: on one hand, all nodes must start from the same status, and on the other, the status transition of all nodes must be definite, that is, given the same status and request, the results after the operation must be the same. Under these two constraints, as long as the entire system agrees on the processing order of all transactions, the status of all honest nodes will be consistent. This is also the main purpose of the PBFT protocol: to reach a consensus on the order of transactions between all nodes, thereby ensuring the security of the entire distributed system. In terms of availability, the PBFT consensus protocol relies on a timeout mechanism to find anomalies in the consensus process and start the View Change protocol in time to try to reach a consensus again.
The figure above shows a simplified workflow of the PBFT protocol. Where C is the client, 0, 1, 2, and 3 represent 4 nodes respectively. Specifically, 0 is the master node of the current view, 1, 2, 3 are slave nodes, and node 3 is faulty. Under normal circumstances, the PBFT consensus protocol reaches consensus on the order of transactions between nodes through a three-phase protocol. These three phases are respectively: Pre-Prepare, Prepare, and Commit:
• The master node of the pre-preparation node is responsible for assigning the sequence number to the received client request, and broadcasting the message to the slave node. The message contains the hash value of the client request d, the sequence number of the current viewv, the sequence number n assigned by the master node to the request, and the signature information of the master nodesig. The scheme design of the PBFT protocol separates the request transmission from the request sequencing process, and the request transmission is not to be discussed here. The slave node that receives the message accepts the message after confirming the message is legitimate and enter preparation phase. The message in this step checks the basic signature, hash value, current view, and, most importantly, whether the master node has given the same sequence number to other request from the client in the current view.
• In preparation, the slave node broadcasts the message to all nodes (including itself), indicating that it assigns the sequence number n to the client request with the hash value d under the current view v, with its signaturesig as proof. The node receiving the message will check the correctness of the signature, the matching of the view sequence number, etc., and accept the legitimate message. When the PRE-PREPARE message about a client request (from the main node) received by a node matches with the PREPARE from 2f slave nodes, the system has agreed on the sequence number requested by the client in the current view. This means that 2f+1 nodes in the current view agree with the request sequence number. Since it contains information from at most fmalicious nodes, there are a total of f+1 honest nodes that have agreed with the allocation of the request sequence number. With f malicious nodes, there are a total of 2f+1 honest nodes, so f+1represents the majority of the honest nodes, which is the consensus of the majority mentioned before.
• After the node (including the master node and the slave node) receives a PRE-PREPARE message requested by the client and 2f PREPARE messages, the message is broadcast across the network and enters the submission phase. This message is used to indicate that the node has observed that the whole network has reached a consensus on the sequence number allocation of the request message from the client. When the node receives 2f+1 COMMIT messages, there are at least f+1 honest nodes, that is, most of the honest nodes have observed that the entire network has reached consensus on the arrangement of sequence numbers of the request message from the client. The node can process the client request and return the execution result to the client at this moment.
Roughly speaking, in the pre-preparation phase, the master node assigns a sequence number to all new client requests. During preparation, all nodes reach consensus on the client request sequence number in this view, while in submission the consistency of the request sequence number of the client in different views is to be guaranteed. In addition, the design of the PBFT protocol itself does not require the request message to be submitted by the assigned sequence number, but out of order. That can improve the efficiency of the implementation of the consensus protocol. Yet, the messages are still processed by the sequence number assigned by the consensus protocol for the consistency of the distributed system.
In the three-phase protocol execution of the PBFT protocol, in addition to maintaining the status information of the distributed system, the node itself also needs to log all kinds of consensus information it receives. The gradual accumulation of logs will consume considerable system resources. Therefore, the PBFT protocol additionally defines checkpoints to help the node deal with garbage collection. You can set a checkpoint every 100 or 1000 sequence numbers according to the request sequence number. After the client request at the checkpoint is executed, the node broadcasts messages throughout the network, indicating that after the node executes the client request with sequence number n, the hash value of the system status is d, and it is vouched by its own signature sig. After 2f+1 matching CHECKPOINT messages (one of which can come from the node itself) are received, most of the honest nodes in the entire network have reached a consensus on the system status after the execution of the client request with the sequence numbern, and then you can clear all relevant log records of client requests with the sequence number less than n. The node needs to save these2f+1 CHECKPOINTmessages as proof of the legitimate status at this moment, and the corresponding checkpoint is called a stable checkpoint.
The three-phase protocol of the PBFT protocol can ensure the consistency of the processing order of the client request, and the checkpoint mechanism is set to help nodes perform garbage collection and further ensures the status consistency of the distributed system, both of which can guarantee the security of the distributed system aforementioned. How is the availability of the distributed system guaranteed? In the semi-synchronous network model, a timeout mechanism is usually introduced, which is related to delays in the network environment. It is assumed that the network delay has a known upper bound after GST. In such condition, an initial value is usually set according to the network condition of the system deployed. In case of a timeout event, besides the corresponding processing flow triggered, additional mechanisms will be activated to readjust the waiting time. For example, an algorithm like TCP's exponential back off can be adopted to adjust the waiting time after a timeout event.
To ensure the availability of the system in the PBFT protocol, a timeout mechanism is also introduced. In addition, due to the potential the Byzantine failure in the master node itself, the PBFT protocol also needs to ensure the security and availability of the system in this case. When the Byzantine failure occurs in the master node, for example, when the slave node does not receive the PRE-PREPARE message or the PRE-PREPARE message sent by the master node from the master node within the time window and is thus determined to be illegitimate, the slave node can broadcast to the entire network, indicating that the node requests to switch to the new view with sequence number v+1. n indicates the request sequence number corresponding to the latest stable checkpoint local to the node, and C is to prove the stable checkpoint 2f+1 legitimate CHECKPOINT messages as aforementioned. After the latest stable checkpoint and before initiating the VIEWCHANGE message, the system may have reached a consensus on the sequence numbers of some request messages in the previous view. To ensure the consistency of these request sequence numbers to be switched in the view, the VIEWCHANGE message needs to carry this kind of the information to the new view, which is also the meaning of the P field in the message. P contains all the client request messages collected at the node with a request sequence number greater than n and the proof that a consensus has been reached on the sequence number in the node: the legitimate PRE-PREPARE message of the request and 2f matching PREPARE messages. When the master node in view v+1 collects 2f+1 VIEWCHANGE messages, it can broadcast the NEW-VIEW message and take the entire system into a new view. For the security of the system in combination with the three-phase protocol of the PBFT protocol, the construction rules of the NEW-VIEW information are designed in a quite complicated way. You can refer to the original paper of PBFT for more details.

VIEWCHANGE contains a lot of information. For example, C contains 2f+1 signature information, P contains several signature sets, and each set has 2f+1 signature. At least 2f+1 nodes need to send a VIEWCHANGE message before prompting the system to enter the next new view, and that means, in addition to the complex logic of constructing the information of VIEWCHANGE and NEW-VIEW, the communication complexity of the view conversion protocol is $O(n2$.) Such complexity also limits the PBFT protocol to support only a few nodes, and when there are 100 nodes, it is usually too complex to practically deploy PBFT. It is worth noting that in some materials the communication complexity of the PBFT protocol is inappropriately attributed to the full connection between n nodes. By changing the fully connected network topology to the P2P network topology based on distributed hash tables commonly used in blockchain projects, high communication complexity caused by full connection can be conveniently solved, yet still, it is difficult to improve the communication complexity during the view conversion process. In recent years, researchers have proposed to reduce the amount of communication in this step by adopting aggregate signature scheme. With this technology, 2f+1 signature information can be compressed into one, thereby reducing the communication volume during view change.

##### Cryptomarketing in 2020: successful application of strategies from MLM and the beauty industry

Cryptomarketing in 2020: successful application of strategies from MLM and the beauty industry
Over the past decade, the crypto-industry has proven to be a unique industry with a specific audience, which requires a no less specific approach. In this regard, in 2020, the advertising activity of crypto companies is significantly different from that to which banks and various financial companies resort. Industry leaders prefer not to rely on traditional online advertising on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. They follow a different path: they work with bloggers (opinion leaders and influencers), rely on MLM marketing referral programs and actively organize various contests and sweepstakes with generous prize pools. The CoinDesk portal claims that crypto marketing this year is strikingly reminiscent of marketing in the beauty industry, and here it is no less effective.

# General concept

Michelle Fan, a blogger with a million YouTube subscribers, is using the same techniques to spread skin care life hacks and the idea of financial freedom through bitcoins. Moreover, she assures that the leaders of the crypto industry, like her, use marketing schemes from the beauty industry, even if they themselves do not know about it.
Both areas prefer to use the DTC (Direct to Customer) business scheme, independently creating and then promoting and selling goods / services, working as closely as possible with the community. Sales are built through aggregated retail platforms like Amazon, Etsy and Shopify, or even through accounts in popular social networks.
Industry leaders in developing countries often resort to the latter option, where large sites like Amazon simply don’t work or aren’t popular. For example, Michelle Haber, a bitcoin maximalist from Libya, made it clear in CoinDesk’s comment that social networks and chats are today the most effective way to distribute goods / services in crypto topics. He said that local traders in order to “educate” the audience help buy hardware wallets, selling them through groups on social networks. Buying yourself Trezor or Ledger in another way is often simply impossible.

Michelle Fan is not the only person from the crypto-community who notices the similarities with the beauty industry. So, Maria Paula Fernandez, who actively uses the services of the DeFi sector and is seriously interested in the topic of skin care, gave the CoinDesk portal a similar comment.
She notes that in both cases, society has become accustomed to relying on the opinion of society itself, rather than trusting the views of the world’s leading media. Therefore, in both sectors, the so-called influencers are very popular — opinion leaders and bloggers who disseminate information among their audience on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and other social networks, receiving a reward for this.
Crypto-companies very often, like firms from the beauty industry, provide their products to opinion leaders for review and further “instruction” of their subscribers. Maria Paula Fernandez does not see anything shameful in this. Observing the experience of bloggers, subscribers begin to acquire a kind of crypto-education and disseminate the information through the word of mouth. Thus, the crypto-community grows.
The most successful bloggers over time can count on sponsorship from one or another crypto company.
For example, the podcaster Marty Bent, whose show is now funded by Unchained Capital and Square, the developer of Cash App, witnessed this scenario. The latter, by the way, in addition to Bent sponsor also podcast Joe Rogan and rapper Lil B.
Many other large companies, including the Kraken exchange, have resorted to this strategy. They are just as interested in sponsoring reputable content creators who promote products among loyal subscribers. The U.S. exchange sponsors the Reckless VR crypto start-up, founded by Udi Wertheimer for crypto-conferences in virtual reality, and the famous podcast Peter McCormack, who launched his own media brand Defiance last year. Having started his career as a hobby, McCormack turned it into a business of his life, thanks to which he earned about $1 million for 2019. With all this, working with bloggers is a great opportunity to enter foreign markets. This is understood at Crypto.com, where they use opinion leaders to attract the Russian-speaking and Turkish-speaking community. Does this approach give a result? Judge for yourself: over the past six months, the number of startup users has doubled and currently stands at more than 2 million people. # Referral Bonuses and MLM Marketing The development of products within the community often turns into MLM marketing strategies, which require the presence of referral bonuses and bonuses “in depth” — favorite schemes of cosmetic brands. They use a multi-level reward system for attracting partners, where you can usually get a bonus not only for personally invited, but also for “friends of friends and their friends”. Thus, opinion leaders who distribute crypto products often receive a portion of the funds that people invited by them will pay for the product / service. The relevance and effectiveness of the trend is confirmed by the fact that these methods are not shy to use not only crypto start-ups, but also top cryptocurrency companies, widely known throughout the industry. A prime example is SatoshiLabs, a company that manufactures and distributes Trezor wallets. The head of communications, Iva Fizerova, confirmed that she is actively resorting to “affiliate marketing” with bloggers as an alternative to paying them for direct advertising. No less vivid examples are the largest crypto exchanges Binance and Gemini, which managed to succeed not without the help of referral systems copied from the multi-level marketing campaigns Avon and Mary Kay, which they have been using for decades. Instagram blogger Chjango Unchained has been earning good bonuses for several months running after posting a referral link to Gemini on her profile. When her subscribers register on the exchange and buy cryptocurrencies worth more than$100, she receives $10 in BTC. According to her, she is doing a good deed. The blogger wants people who are interested in her opinion on digital money to start their crypto path on Gemini, and not, for example, on Coinbase, because the latter charges “crazy commissions”. Referral system bonuses are a typical phenomenon for many crypto companies, and successful bloggers are happy to use this. A prime example is Michael Gu, known by the pseudonym Boxmining. It has been distributing information about digital money since 2012, having gathered an audience of more than 200,000 subscribers on YouTube and more than 3,500 participants in Telegram chat during this time. Despite the fact that the manufacturer of hardware wallets Ledger does not sponsor its activities, it places referral links in the video descriptions and collects voluntary donations from subscribers. As you might guess, he feels rather well. At the same time, he emphasized that user activity during the coronavirus pandemic is only growing, especially after YouTube began to put sticks in the wheels of the creators of crypto-content. # Gifts, contests and sweepstakes Making a small gift is a great way to introduce an audience to a new product. In the cryptocurrency market, this has long been relevant. Coin creators eagerly carry out airdrops and bounty campaigns, allowing the crypto community to test the new coin. A similar approach is popular in the beauty industry. Samplers of perfumes and branded magazines with smells have led many girls to buy full-fledged versions of the fragrance. In addition to the cryptocurrency developers themselves, a similar approach is also used by cryptocompanies of a different direction, which cannot conduct airdrops due to their technical features (for example, this is true for manufacturers of hardware wallets). Therefore, they organize more classic contests and sweepstakes. For example, they play a wallet for reposting on social networks or videos published on YouTube. It is noteworthy that cryptobrands in this area are even more active than cosmetics manufacturers. They work not only with trusted bloggers with many subscribers, but also help to become less “untwisted” users. Therefore, they periodically assist them in organizing draws in order to attract subscribers who could potentially become new customers. Iva Fizerova from SatoshiLabs confirmed that Trezor manufacturers periodically help users attract new followers through the distribution of gifts. Moreover, this approach brings excellent results. By working with the community this way, they have managed to sell hundreds of thousands of wallets. But most importantly, a reputation of the brand has formed around the product, warmly received by the audience. And this effect is so strong that the company simply does not see the point in spending money on traditional expensive advertising. Most importantly, despite all the problems of 2020, including the coronavirus pandemic, which seriously hit the global economy and, accordingly, people’s wallets, demand for products did not fall. This approach remains effective, while the percentage of successful conversions in traditional advertising has probably decreased. Fizerova noted that over the past three months they have recorded a steady increase in demand for goods. Moreover, they even had to solve delivery problems, if only the buyers got the desired devices in a timely manner. A similar approach and results are observed with other manufacturers of hardware wallets. Thus, Rodolfo Novak, co-founder of Coinkite, confirmed the growth in demand for products, despite the pandemic. Working with the community is their main marketing strategy, because it really gives results. Over the past three years, they donated about 50 wallets to YouTube reviewers. Novak is proud that their “users help other users.” According to him, this approach allows you to sell products at a lower price, since the cost of goods does not include high costs for familiar marketing campaigns. # Are marketing strategies effective? More than The cryptocurrency market relies on marketing strategies that have established themselves in the beauty industry, which in the new field are no less effective. Maximum performance is achieved with a killer combination of all three of the above methods. It’s about when the founders of cryptocompanies themselves become opinion leaders. Just look at Changpen Zhao, the head of Binance, or Justin Sun, the project manager of TRON. Both entrepreneurs are bloggers with a huge army of subscribers and are personally engaged in the promotion of their brands, regularly rewarding their audience with pleasant gifts. It’s easy to guess why industry leaders rely mainly on this type of marketing. Advertising products in the traditional way is expensive, especially for startups, behind which there are still no attractive products with a good reputation. But more importantly, crypto products are quite complex in themselves, so they often need detailed explanations, which are difficult to implement in the framework of traditional advertising. Agree that selling a bottle of Fanta with a new taste is much easier than a hardware cryptocurrency wallet, especially since most people don’t understand what it is. On top of that, regular advertising is complicated by the fact that media giants regularly block crypto content. In such a situation, marketing borrowed from the beauty industry seems to be the most acceptable and most effective option. By focusing their marketing budgets on opinion leaders and working with the community, cryptocompanies achieve the desired result, even taking into account the coronavirus pandemic. The crypto community is getting bigger and stronger every day. But the best part is that this growth cannot be stopped. Subscribe to our Telegram channel submitted by Smart_Smell to Robopay [link] [comments] ##### A better name for 'Decred' to broaden the reach of our superior vision This is a detailed proposal I planned to have put up for vote on Politeia. But was told it would need a more detailed plan of execution (budget, marketing, devs etc) which is beyond my expertise. I invite everyone in the DCR community to read it and contribute to make it a reality. Intro: Warm greetings to everyone! I am a DCR supporter with a background in law and media. For years I was a news reporter in one of China's largest television networks, during that time I have accumulated a solid understanding of mass communication and presentation. I fell down the Bitcoin rabbit hole in 2017 and has not look back since. But I believe DCR is a superior store-of-value and a decentralised organism capable of long-term adaptability thus securing the long term financial sovereignty and organisation of people around the world. Problem: However, there is a growing sense in the community that Decred has a name recognition barrier to overcome. That was expressed by the DEX developers saying the concern they have is 'getting the word out there'(Decred in Depth May 15th), a concern echoed by many others. The community also appears to be debating and experimenting with various outreach strategies. I have confidence in our vision, developers and contributors. However, they are not the only factors determining the success of a project. When it comes to the expansion of name recognition, adoption and network effects, the competition is fierce and likely winner takes most or even all (see Matthew effect, "Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." Bible Matt 13:12 ). If we do not present our project in the most approachable way possible, I do believe we are at risk of missing out on the golden window of adoption, and the project might never really catch on. That would be a big shame because the world would never be able to adopt our superior vision of Bitcoin sound money, and if the governance issues of bitcoin does flare up further down the road, there is a risk of it being corrupted, neutralised or captured by some predatory governments and the international fiat financiers, and they will never allow something like Bitcoin to develop among the masses again, if that happens, Decred would not be large enough to deter them either. Reasons for Proposal: I would like to lay out reasons why the name 'Decred' is not a good name for our project and is holding us back at the moment. I obviously have great respect all the design and planning that has gone before and my fellow Decredees already working on design projects will be incentivised to vote against my proposal. But I am offering constructive criticism and we all want the project to succeed and do not want proposals to just validate whatever we have been doing before. So I hope you would consider this carefully and objectively. I suggest that the name of our project 'Decred' should be reviewed and rebranded. Firstly, the name 'Decred (decentralized credits)' is manifestly tech and developer centred, it reflects the perspective and values of the brilliant minds that conceived our project. I understand the monumental importance of decentralization, but for the newcomer the word is hard to grasp. When introducing the name of a project, we want to communicate what would register as substance that can be easily grasped by people. 'Bitcoin' emphasizes that it is digital and has value. The word 'Coin' is easily understood as substance, 'Coin' is a classic word communicating value that appeals to the most primordial circuits of our brains as something you want( to hold in your hand), something of value, something that jingles in your pocket, something shiny that you want to accumulate and collect. In contrast, the "De" in Decred gives a notion of negation and negativity, not of substance and affirmation, as is common in the English language (for example: devalue, dethrone, debunk, devolve, dejected). I fully appreciated that to us insiders 'de' signifies 'decentralized' and is of enormous substance and value, but that is not apparent to the newcomer and even implies the opposite. Secondly, 'Cred (as in credit)' is also very intangible compared to 'Coin', credit only developed later in human economy and do not register with the same force as 'Coin' in our neural circuitry that identifies value. In our day and age, the word 'credit' also has a negative connotations (for example: credit bubble, credit card fraud, credit crunch, credit crisis). In short, credit is associated with volatility and fragility, which is very contrary to the nature of our robust project that values reliability and long-term adaptability. So with all due respect, "Decred" is not a good name to communicate what we stand for. Compared to 'Bitcoin', it does not meet people where they are (we want people to come for the profit and stay for the vision and tech, most people are like that, for better or for worse), 'Decred' is a bit too self-obsessed with putting what's under-the-hood of the project right upfront in the name, it is not at all obvious what 'Decred' means to a curious person who wanders into cryptoland. In addition, "Decred" bears an unwelcome resemblance to the word "Discredit" which is also another minus. We should focus more on how the name of our project makes people feel, rather than emphasising function and features that newcomers are unlikely to grasp easily. The majority of people make decisions based on how it makes them feel, not on utility and reason alone. Bitcoin understands this, it struck a more visceral part of the human psyche, people want 'Coins' that can go up in value, but in fact that hopeful speculation and hopium was the Trojan's horse for the masses to adopt a more decentralized, censorship-resistance and secure form of monetary system. Our project should do the same, starting with the name. Thirdly, I would like to put forward my idea about what should replace the name "Decred'. There can be little doubt that Decred is building on the brilliance and vision of Bitcoin (PoW, 21 million supply cap, transparency and decentralization). In a way, our project aims to be more 'Bitcoin' than Bitcoin, PoW+PoS improves security, the governance mechanism + treasury ventures to where Bitcoin has not gone before, which is building decentralization and transparency in the governance and evolutionary process of the project itself. Our project lead Jacob Yocom-Piat, whom I really respect, shared how he discovered a 'central planning committee' running things in Bitcoin and believed it was contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin, that helped give birth to the name 'Decred'. Therefore I believe the 'De' in Decred is a further doubling down of the principle of decentralization ('like it or not, we are taking this all the way, Bitcoin!') , it is a protest. 'Cred' could also be a reaction against the more tangible name 'Coin' signifying that we are moving further beyond it in the digital economy with 'decentralised credits'. However, as I have already laid out above, it is not an approachable name from the perspective of the new adopter. Decred is in essence a reactionary name, and is not optimal for presenting a project that is already digital, intangible and hard to grasp. History shaped the name 'Decred' and that is a beautiful thing, we would not be here without it. But I suggest it is time to move beyond by taking a step back. We do not want to be going against the grain of two things: 1) human nature and the learning curve towards the tangible and affirmative as opposed the the negational and negative. 2) the already established network effect of the name recognition of 'Bitcoin'. Going against these two grains will make it unnecessarily harder for our outreach, thus hamstringing adoption, instead we should go with the grain and ride the wave of already established network effects by tapping into people's familiarity with the word 'Bitcoin' . Therefore I propose the new name of our project should at least include the word 'Bitcoin" followed by a word to describe the unique way our project has taken Bitcoin forward. Bitcoiner Dan Held mention in his blog how: "Bitcoin is the Apex predator of money" https://www.danheld.com/blog/2019/1/6/planting-bitcoinspecies-14 I truly believe that title actually belongs to our project. With our treasury, potential consensus rule changes through politeia and extra security compared to Bitcoin, we will evolve our way up the monetary food-chain because we are robust and superiorly adaptable. As Chris Buriske says: "In #crypto, so long as you have good governance, you can have any feature you want." Thus, I further suggest our rebranded name be: Bitcoin Evolution (Bitcoin E/BTE). I believe this faithfully reflects our ethos of being true to the spirit of Bitcoin while also being future-proof and adaptable (Although the vote in this proposal itself is not a referendum on Bitcoin Evolution, I will explain at the end). For people looking into our project, trying to figure out what we are about, 'Bitcoin Evolution' really speaks for itself. The famous Bitcoin educator Andreas Antonopoulos once said that "the next Bitcoin is Bitcoin". I take it to mean that the idea of Bitcoin is larger than the specific chain Satoshi Nakamoto started himself. If that's true, it is justified for a later project that takes the spirit of Bitcoin even further to adopt the name Bitcoin E. E means Evolution. Also on the off chance that we turn out to be more wrong about Bitcoin's governance than we think and Bitcoin's rough consensus works out just fine (no more hard forks, successfully implements privacy, no VC corruption etc). Then Bitcoin will become the indisputable 'gold standard' and likely take most of the pie, in that case if our name highlights our similarity to Bitcoin and our governance model also hold its own, we will likely end up doing better than sticking to our protest name 'Decred'. This is from a risk management perspective that we might want to consider. Also on the off chance that we turn out to be more wrong about Bitcoin's governance than we think and Bitcoin's rough consensus works out just fine (no more hard forks, successfully implements privacy, no VC corruption etc). Then Bitcoin will become the indisputable 'gold standard' and likely take most of the pie, in that case if our name highlights our similarity to Bitcoin and our governance model also hold its own, we will likely end up doing better than sticking to our protest name 'Decred'. This is from a risk management perspective that we might want to consider. Possible Objections: I am happy to engage with any question or objections in the comments sections. But allow me to first anticipate some objections I foresee here. Q1) "Rebranding now will undo too much of the work we have done before. It is too late." A1: By all the indicators that matter, we are still very early. With the upcoming bull market in this money printer go brrr macro economics setting, a new wave of new investors will be flooding into the crypto sphere in the next 2-3 years, and they will be coming for Bitcoin. By not going against the grain of the established Bitcoin name, the attention Bitcoin Evolution will receive down the years would far outweigh what loss we incur from rebranding. Short term pain, long term gain. Q2) "Won't we be making an opportunistic gambit and look like scammy or weak projects like Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Diamond and Bitcoin Gold ? What if we attract all the wrong people and destroy our community culture?" A2: I believe regardless of others think, our rebranding is not an opportunistic gambit. Bitcoin Diamond, Gold and etc are forks of Bitcoin that misses the point of what BTC was about. We are not a fork of Bitcoin (and we aim precisely to avoid contentious hard forks). Nevertheless, the spirit of Bitcoin is faithfully implemented in our chain. We preserve the immutability and robustness of BTC and take the decentralization principle to its full logical conclusion, which is for it to permeant development and community decision -making. One can say we are the true heirs of Bitcoin and we should carry the mantle proudly if we really believe in our vision. I also do not believe "Bitcoin Evolution" will attract all the wrong people. We will have a huge influx for sure, and that will put us under pressure. But unlike Bitcoin 'Cash' Gold or Diamond', people will coming to us will understand we have the long term and adaptability in mind, 'evolution' suggests it is a long game. The quick buck at all costs bunch will not find ours to be the most enticing name. I also have faith in our incredible community of communicators and educators to bring new people onboard to our long term mindset. In addition, when we rebrand, the people who know Decred well and support it will not abandon ship just because they don't like the new name. The people who are already critical of Decred will no doubt seize the opportunity to attack and insinuate. Haters gonna hate. We did not care before and should not start fretting. I invite all to focus on all the new and curious adopters and explorers who will be flocking to us because of the Bitcoin name, and rightly so. Q3) "If the fundamentals are sound, won't the project catch on even if the name 'Decred' is unrelatable? Just a matter of time right?" A3: No. The history of other network effects has shown, the success of a project depends on many factors, it is not just a simple framework of a sifting mechanism eventually singling out the best tech and best ideas.** Sometimes it is not the best idea that wins, but the idea that is good enough at the right time and the right place wins.*\* Think of the internet protocol TCP/IP. We have to have the right ideas at the right time and meet growth goals at an appropriate speed to break out of bottlenecks and achieve network adoption. With Bitcoin there is the added risk of entrenched centralised establishments exploiting the weaknesses in its governance to neutralised it, if they succeed, we will likely not get a second chance. We should not leave that to chance and refine our project in as many ways as possible. I believe precisely because we have sound fundamentals of decentralized governance, that when time is ripe to consider a rebrand, we will meet the need together and start this conversation to get the job done. But the project won't automatically catch on by itself, we need to explore and make decisions together to improve it. In conclusion: In our name, let us not present to the world what we are against (centralisation), but what we are for(Adaptive future-proof Bitcoin with all its classic strengths). Let us go with the grain of human nature and the network effects of name recognition and not unnecessarily strive against it. I believe just like a teenager transitioning into adulthood, we are coming of age in a new era of growth and self-awareness. And sometimes, growth means taking a step back to recalibrate and orient ourselves. What you are voting on: I hope to ignite a constructive discussion about a serious plan to rebrand for the better. I do not ask for any funding as it is not up to me to implement anything, I just hope my insights can help us on the journey of changing the world for the better with our superior vision of an unstoppable decentralised organism. The How, Who and When questions concerning rebranding should be explored by the community together. If you Vote 'Yes' you are not necessarily saying we are just going to rebrand to "Bitcoin Evolution" or even a new name with "Bitcoin" in it. Voting 'Yes' means you see the merits of my arguments and want to seriously consider rebranding and turning the page from the current name 'Decred'. I have been engaging with the Chinese Decred community but I am not known to the community at large, so I understand there will be a lot of questions and scepticism and I welcome all constructive feedback. I also want to pay my deep respects to all the developers, contributors and everyone who has dedicated their time and passion to our project. Let's keep building together! If you appreciate the work I put into this, feel free to make a voluntary donation: DCR: DsWgLiEBw5YAHqrfZpYQjgPYhAT2DkdD6m9 BTC: 3GtuhwsoY2BYjqbaf2tCdjZbZw2Zn4H48P You can follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/decredinator Peace, decredinator submitted by Decredinator to decred [link] [comments] ##### 500 to 5000 MCO Upgrade Strategy Currently the 500 MCO tier is sort of the sweet spot for most users where a lot of valuable perks kick in. When I first purchased MCO it was under$3 USD, so going straight to the 500 tier was an obvious choice. I was planning to put some Stablecoins and Bitcoin into earn, so the added 2% bonus in-kind in earn, plus the 3% card cashbacks and Netflix reimbursement made the choice economically beneficial quite quickly. Less than a year later the benefits have provided me a larger return on investment than if I had done otherwise.
I have been eyeing the upgrade to the 5000 tier, but I wanted to do an analysis of what sort of upgrade strategy makes sense to optimize ROI weighted against risks and if I'm even the right candidate for such an investment. With the price of MCO being higher, it's not such a clear decision. I will outline my thought process below.
Assumptions - These are the assumptions that I am working with for my analysis. Working with a different set of assumptions will affect the decision making process differently for different people.
• Decision making process involves only MCO, Stablecoins (Fiat), and Bitcoin
• Bitcoin being held was bought at a low price and converting to MCO will cause a taxable event
• There is no monetary benefit to Prime because I've been grandfathered into prime from an old family members account
• There is no monetary benefit to Expedia because I do all my travel spending on my Chase Sapphire Reserve that offers robust travel benefits and protections.
• The monetary benefit to CDC Private is not clear at the time
• Time frame of one year
• Interest rates on the platform do not drastically change over the next year
• MCO and BTC change fluctuate roughly in lockstep
• Dollar figures below are arbitrary for example purposes only
Based on the above assumptions we can now look at different upgrade pathways and see which options make the most sense. This thought process is a place to start and can be adjusted to each person's individual case.

# Stablecoin (Fiat) to MCO pathway

At today's price of ~$4.85 USD at time of writing, it would cost$21,825 USD to upgrade directly into the 5000 tier by buying 4500 additional MCO. This gives additional benefits of 2% in earn, 1% on card, and 8% vs 6% on staked MCO.
The variables we need to look at to find out if this makes sense over the next year are: assets in Earn and annual card spend.
The opportunity cost of putting the money into MCO is a 4% yield on $21,825 (12% in Earn minus 8% staked in MCO) minus a 2% yield on 500 MCO, or roughly$824.50.
We also open ourselves up to exchange rate volatility, there is a very real, non-0% chance that the crypto market collapses, or that MCO itself collapses in value. There is also a chance it will go way up. If you are looking to hold the MCO, or crypto in general, for longer periods of time, we need to sort of normalize the projected trend to figure out ROI. That means ignoring big jumps and drops, or retroactively thinking you could have made or lost money by trading in and out… that falls under trading and speculation. In general, most of us think the crypto market is going up, but by how much and how fast are variables that need to be considered in how exposed to crypto you want to be
In order to make this pathway a positive ROI, we need to make an additional $824.50 through the added benefits in Earn and card spending over the course of one year. What does that look like? Assets in Earn*0.02 + Card spend*0.01>824.50  Examples: • Card spend:$1,000; Earn: $40,725 • Card spend:$5,000; Earn: $38,725 • Card spend:$10,000; Earn: $36,225 If you don't have roughly$35-40k in Earn, upgrading to 5000 Tier makes very little sense IMO.
Full Account Examples (Assuming today's crypto prices):
• Case 1 - 500 MCO staked; $100,000 Stablecoins in Earn;$100,000 Bitcoin in earn; $3000 card spend • 500 *$4.85 * 0.06 = $145.50 •$100,000 * 0.12 = $12,000 •$100,000 * 0.055 = $5,500 •$3,000 * 0.03 = $90 • Total annual rewards:$17,735.50
• Case 2 - 5000 MCO staked; $80,000 Stablecoins;$100,000 Bitcoin in Earn; $3000 card spend • 5000 *$4.85 *0.08 = $1,940 •$80,000 * 0.14 = $11,200 •$100,000 * 0.075 = $7,500 •$3,000 * 0.04 = $120 • Total annual rewards:$20,760
Case 1 and 2 are very similar in total assets, but case 2 provides the better return after one year ($20,760 -$17,735.50 = $3,024.50) at the cost of being more exposed to crypto. # Bitcoin to MCO pathway via Drip Another option to consider is upgrading to the 5000 tier via Bitcoin. I mention "Drip" in the header because I imagine most people able to do a lump sum conversion would encounter a taxable event and would be less inclined to go that route. Utilizing a drip format will upgrade on a longer time scale, but result in negligible taxable gain. It also keeps crypto exposure at roughly the same level throughout the process. The benefits from going to MCO from BTC is a higher interest rate for MCO being staked at 6% vs BTC in Earn at 5.5%; I also assume CDC will be able to keep the 6% on MCO longer than they can keep the rate high on BTC. The drawbacks are less liquidity on MCO, potentially more volatility, and potential loss of value relative to BTC in Satoshis (we'll ignore the last point since we are assuming a similar sat ratio over time). Another thing to mention, if we want to upgrade over the course of one year, BTC holdings need to be pretty sizable at$400,000 That's a little unreasonable for most people, so let's assume a smaller holding of $100,000 btc like the two cases above. This will take three years to accomplish and the equation gets a bit more complicated in this situation. • 500 MCO staked at 6% •$100,000 BTC in Earn at 5.5%
• Proceeds from both go immediately into MCO 3 Month Earn at 8%
Basically if you take the above situation and plug it into a compound interest calculator, compounding quarterly, it takes almost 3 years exactly to drip your way into the 5000 tier. We can mostly ignore any change in crypto USD value as long as the MCO/BTC ratio stays similar.
If you definitely want to go to the 5000 tier, the question becomes purchase lump sum via Fiat or drip via crypto.
The opportunity cost of dripping is the lost 2% gain in earn over the course of 3 years (which as you'll see below, could be significant if the market jumps quickly at which point purchasing via Fiat becomes prohibitively expensive). But the benefit is that you maintain your current crypto exposure in the case of a major bear market where you could potentially purchase via Fiat at a much lower price.

# Exit Strategy

I think it's important to think about an exit strategy. In my opinion, upgrading to the 5000 tier only really makes sense if you are having a lot of assets in Earn. The added 1% on card spend and other perks pales in comparison to the added 2% on Earn with a large amount of assets. It's also my opinion that MCO should only be a small portion of a crypto portfolio. Regardless, if MCO is your main holding you are betting on the crypto market going up, because the added 5000 tier benefits won't comparatively amount to much over a year anyway.
If crypto prices stay the same the benefits to holding MCO stay flat, but as crypto prices rise, the incentives change. Imagine we go on a huge bull run and the market goes up 20x. I bet a lot of people will want to rebalance and cash in some of that profit. It's quite possible holding 5000 MCO becomes too big of a risk for the benefits received.
What's nice is that CDC seems to have thought about the optimal profile for people to get to the 5000 tier level...like I stated above, people with significant assets in Earn.
Imagine the person in Case 2 above in an environment where the crypto market shoots up 20x.
• 5000 MCO = $500,000 •$80,000 Stablecoins = $80,000 •$100,000 BTC = $2,000,000 In this situation, it makes sense to rebalance your portfolio and take some earnings off the table. However, it actually makes a lot of sense to keep the 5000 MCO staked and rebalance away from BTC into Stablecoins. Look at the yearly earnings of different options below: • Leave as is:$191,200
• Rebalance $450,000 from BTC to Stablecoins maintaining 5000 MCO tier:$220,450
• Rebalance $450,000 away from MCO to Stablecoins dropping to the 500 MCO tier:$176,600
As you can see, losing the bonus 2% in earn cuts your profit over the course of a year.
CDC was quite thoughtful in changing the award structure for the added 2% in Earn. It should keep early adopters from leaving if the market goes up, and should actually attract newly minted crypto whales as they rebalance out of other cryptos. This should keep the MCO price strong for a long time and give confidence to people investing in MCO.

# Conclusion

I think upgrading to the 5000 tier can make a lot of sense for certain people. But after reaching the 5000 tier I would probably immediately cash out all rewarded MCO to Stablecoins to compound at a higher interest rate and just maintain the 5000 level. Unless there are some dramatic new rewards for the 50,000 level I don't see the value proposition to go for Black. Perhaps an additional 2% in Earn, but that is probably not sustainable to the company.
Let me know what you think, or if I made any mistakes.

Edit: Changed numbers to reflect 8% earned on staked MCO at the 5000 Tier level. This makes the upgrade more compelling.

# Introduction

As promised in our previous article, we wanted to provide some extra clarity on Bitcoin Unlimited financial choices. We wanted to do this as there has been a lot of confusion and misinformation within the community as to the reasons behind these choices.
It has been claimed by a small number of influential people in the ecosystem that Bitcoin Unlimited does not support BCH (see the previous article debunking this claim) and that BU’s holdings are supposedly evidence of this. Background Bitcoin Unlimited was founded in 2015, and was set up as a response to the Bitcoin block size debate. More specifically, it was created to provide software that allowed on-chain scaling as originally proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto. As we all know, on-chain scaling is a vital component required for peer-to-peer electronic cash to serve the world’s population. Without it Bitcoin would be limited to serving only a small number of people willing and able to pay exorbitantly high fees. Our organisation was created to make Bitcoin unlimited. This prediction of high fees and limited capacity was played out in the BTC we know today as we predicted.
Bitcoin Unlimited received a large anonymous donation in BTC in 2016 from supporters of the ‘on-chain scaling’ movement. This donation allowed our organisation to remain independent and focussed on building software that allows on-chain scaling.
As you all know, in August of 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created after an unsuccessful multi-year effort to allow Bitcoin (BTC) to scale on-chain. Bitcoin Cash was created with the goal of on-chain scaling to support the world’s population right at its heart and BU has been supporting it since the idea was originally formulated.
Once Bitcoin Cash was created it also meant that all funds Bitcoin Unlimited held (BTC) were forked into two equal sets of coins, BTC and BCH. This put BU into a position where we had to make an important decision on how to handle these funds in a way that was in the interest of both BCH and BU.

# Financial Prudence

Any organisation that wants to be effective in its goals must aim to always be financially sustainable. Without money, achieving anything becomes significantly more difficult. Cryptocurrencies only magnify this issue even further. Highly volatile asset values, opaque and dynamic tax and regulatory environments, and the unique properties of cryptocurrencies all contribute towards making the financial operations of an organisation an extreme challenge to say the least. Navigating this challenging landscape is a necessary requirement for the success of any organisation within our industry though.
While Bitcoin Unlimited’s primary goal is to make sure peer-to-peer electronic cash (as set out in the Bitcoin white-paper) becomes a reality, a secondary goal must be to make sure that it has the resources required to make its primary goal achievable, and an important part of these resources are its funds.
After Bitcoin forked into BTC and BCH, Bitcoin Unlimited then held an equal number of both. Although a BUIP was passed to authorize some extra conversion, significant practical obstacles to doing so exist (although this is still being worked on). However, since the overarching reason to convert a significant number of BTC to BCH is to maintain financial prudence based on the reasons outlined below and the poor BCH price performance has heavily skewed our holdings, we do anticipate some rebalancing when these obstacles are resolved.
We will further expand on these reasons below. Historic Volatility It is a fact that BCH has historically been more volatile than BTC. An organisation that wishes to maintain a lower level of risk must aim to hold a majority of funds in assets which will maintain their value over time, i.e. be less volatile in their price. It is unfortunately true that BCH has been a more volatile asset than BCH since its creation. While there has been lots of progress and maturation of the BCH ecosystem, this price volatility is likely due to BCH still being a smaller and less developed ecosystem than BTC. The graphs below show levels of volatility in the two coins compared.

BTC
BCH
This higher volatility in BCH has meant that to significantly increase BU’s holdings of BCH would expose the organisation to a higher level of risk for ideological reasons. BTC is already a high-volatility asset and to expose the organisation funds to even higher volatility and further risk is a decision that should not be taken based on simplistic ideology, but rather with the strategy of maximising the ability for the organisation to achieve its primary goals. This meant making the decision to not take on a higher exposure to price volatility, and instead maintain a more conservative risk profile.

# Lack Of Say In The Protocol

One argument that has been put forward to suggest that this decision does not make sense because it is analogous to a CEO of a company holding more shares in their competitor’s company. This analogy does not accurately reflect the current scenario for BU or BCH. In this analogy BU is the CEO and BCH is the company. Ignoring the shareholders, A CEO is able to have the largest impact on a company compared to any other stakeholder. Their actions have a direct impact on operations of the company and therefore its value and the value of the shares.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin Unlimited currently has little to no input on the BCH protocol. It has no way to directly influence the direction or success of BCH. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, BCH has a mining software homogeneity that is as centralised as BTC (i.e. essentially all miners and pools run a single client, BitcoinABC). This means that, all though BU has a slight majority in non-mining and in-consensus nodes, BU has no say in protocol decisions unless a collaborative and decentralised development model were to be used by BitcoinABC. This is an unfortunate situation considering the fact that the community split from BTC for this very reason and is strongly in support of decentralised development. Secondly, BitcoinABC does not take a collaborative approach to development. All decisions and features are dictated by BitcoinABC.
In fact the situation is unfortunately even worse than this. BitcoinABC has decided to take an actively hostile position against Bitcoin Unlimited (and many other valuable participants in the ecosystem) and would rather that it did not exist at all.
While a number of members of BitcoinABC were previously members of BU, they unfortunately used their privilege as members to try (but fortunately failed) to sabotage the organisation.
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/rendeproposal_vote_result/7eb0ded0487a6593ac3976b63422294e1a84b209be1307c46f373489922212a0
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/rendeproposal_vote_result/6285fcef8fa44416b8e83f25bfebe79aff502c1446a7b60bfab28ec58c35b609
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/rendeproposal_vote_result/b10f54ece2ea3b9001086ebdde0001fbef9dc2fd83729a65ba207c0f1d9dfceb
These three voting records show members of BitcoinABC voting for the purchase of BSV coin, voting for an unfeasibly large block size increase (10TB), and voting for implementation of and miner-activation of BSV features into the BU client. None of these actions were implemented in the ABC client, and the inclusion of BSV features is likely the single biggest criticism certain ABC affiliated people have made against BU, yet members of BitcoinABC voted for it.
While it is important to assume good faith, under no interpretation can this be seen as anything other an act of bad will towards BU. Unfortunately this kind of behaviour is rather the rule than the exception and has likely been a major factor in BCH’s struggle to attract quality developers into the ecosystem.
Regardless of the hard work done by members of BU to create useful software for Bitcoin Cash, and its continued commitment towards peer-to-peer electronic cash for the past 5 years, ABC will unfortunately never allow any of BU’s work to go into the BCH protocol willingly.
If BU were to invest all its funds into BCH it would be making a highly risky bet on BitcoinABC’s leadership, a leadership that has not only been historically unsuccessful (when looking at the price of BCH since its creation, both in dollar terms and BTC/BCH ratio terms), but also actively hostile to our organisation. A more cautious approach that takes these factors into account is to keep the funds held where there has been less volatility.
Regardless of all of this, BU is still 100% committed to supporting Bitcoin Cash.

# Game Theory: The Strategy of Betting Against Yourself

Counter intuitively, a strategy where you bet against yourself can provide a beneficial low-risk profile. When you bet against yourself, if you lose you win and if you win you win. With BU’s current asset holdings of BCH and BTC the organisation is financially hedged in a way that it wins if BCH wins, and if BTC wins then BU lives to fight another day for worldwide peer-to-peer electronic cash.
If BTC goes down and BCH goes up then it means BCH is succeeding, and our funds in BCH will sustain us for longer. Not only that, but there would likely be more funds available for BCH development in this scenario. If BTC goes up and BCH goes down then BU will be sustained for longer to continue the fight for BCH and peer-to-peer electronic cash.
This is very similar to the strategy of BCH-supporting miners mining on BTC and then converting the BTC block rewards into BCH in an effort to use BTC gains to support BCH price. BU is similarly using its gains in BTC and converting them to efforts and initiatives in support of BCH. In doing so Bitcoin Unlimited is able to turn any BTC win into a positive for BCH.

# Incentives

It has been suggested that the situation created by holding a larger portion of funds in BTC than in BCH creates negative incentives that push BU towards supporting BTC. It is important to keep in mind that Bitcoin Unlimited is not a profit driven organisation. While an increase in value of its assets is of course beneficial to the organisation, our primary goal is to accelerate the global adoption of peer-to-peer electronic cash as described in the Bitcoin white-paper, and the officials, membership and founding articles of Bitcoin Unlimited are the driving force for this.
It is also important to point out that there is no evidence to support the claim that BU is in support of BTC (or BSV). In fact the voting record clearly shows the opposite of this. BU has continually worked in support of peer-to-peer electronic cash, and specifically in support of BCH since it was created. This is thanks to the strong commitment by the BU officials and members, all of whom are long time Bitcoiners and supporters of the ‘on-chain scaling’ movement. The only members who receive any payment from the organisation are those who provide significant value in the form of various skilled services, and all of these are voted on by the membership. The BUIP record also shows that compensated individuals are often compensated at far under market rates for developers of their caliber. Should the price of BTC increase, no member receives any direct benefit from this beyond any appreciation in value of any BTC they privately hold. Therefore there are no strong incentives for BU to drive the price of BTC up and push the price of BCH down as this would be counter to our primary goal.

# Has This Strategy Been Successful?

Bitcoin Unlimited and its members, all being long-time Bitcoiners, are acutely aware of the need to play the long game to make sure a globally adopted peer-to-peer electronic cash becomes a reality. BU is the oldest entity within the BCH ecosystem and with good reason. The financial strategy of BU to date has been highly effective in sustaining the organisation over a long period of time, and allowing it to independently support BCH development initiatives. This is made clear by the fact that BU continues to have enough funding to provide value to the BCH ecosystem for the foreseeable future.
Had BU converted all funds to BCH at, or at almost any point after, the time of the BCH/BTC fork in August 2017, then for much of the time since it would have been forced to either scale back operations or shut down support for BCH developers completely. We now see development teams such as BitcoinABC facing the prospect of being unable to fund their development of BCH, and their financial strategy may have contributed to this reality. This is despite the fact that nearly all the funds donated in the recent community funding drive sponsored by bitcoin.com were directed towards BitcoinABC.
Lack of a sustainable funding model also seems to have been a major factor in pushing BitcoinABC to make the highly controversial decision to support a change to the BCH protocol that would divert 12.5% of the block reward to themselves. Being financially prudent and sticking to its principles (as defined in the founding Articles of Federation has allowed Bitcoin Unlimited to steer clear of any conflicts of interest such as this.

# Summary

Through its financial strategy Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to maintain its independence and financial sustainability and has therefore remained in a strong position to support Bitcoin Cash. BU’s officials and membership have continually made good decisions that have allowed BU to provide long-term support for the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem.

##### self proclaimed Satoshi Craig Wright claims Satoshi never posted on bitcointalk...10 years later

In a recent blog post, self proclaimed creator of bitcoin Craig Wright aka Faketoshi has come out and said he never posted on the bitcointalk forum, and all the hundreds of posts done by the 'satoshi' username were not done by the creator of bitcoin.
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/satoshi-never-posted-on-bitcointalk/
This is absolutely hilarious given the fact that if he was Satoshi he , we did chose to say something about it now 10 years later, and not earlier, especially in the 1 year while someone else was posing as him and he was still actively making builds and doing defect fixes.
The satoshi user on the forum had real intimate knowledge of the code & design, was participating in builds, community conversations etc, I'm sure there were plenty of private messages as well. There was no doubt at the time that the satoshi username wasn't the creator of bitcoin.
To retort his comment about waybackmachine hiding satoshis post history, it does the same for all other users if you change the user number. It does however show post history if you append the &start=0 to it, all users started getting archived in 2014, eg:
https://web.archive.org/web/2016*/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=showPosts;start=0
To add to the hilarity, as recently as 7 days before his latest claim, he quotes the supposed 'fake' satoshi bitcointalk posts in his own blog posts in the notes section at the bottom
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/satoshi-and-the-byzantine-generals/

Finally, in my little investigations into this matter, I came across an archived version of the first 3 topics created on bitcointalk, in pdf format as they were part of the restricted staff forum. They have no real revealing or meaningful information in them, so I find no reason for them to be edited (timestamps date back to 2012)
https://bitcointalk.org/first_topics/
https://bitcointalk.org/first_topics/2.pdf
In the second thread, satoshi makes the following harmless statement:
I have to get the number of posts up over 20 so the topic will have multiple pages, so here goes with a bunch of blank posts.
I found the use of the phrase 'here goes' in the context of creating posts interesting/unusual.
After doing some more digging, I then noticed a similar phrasing in a similar context of creating content in an old blog post from Nick Szabo on his blog:
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2012/07/more-short-takes.html
Perhaps I should take up Twitter, but I already have this blog, and even my short takes tend to go a bit over 140 characters. So here goes:

## Who is Craig Wright

Craig Wright is a very well recognized person now. Initially Australian computer scientist, now he is claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of Bitcoin. Since the real identity of Bitcoin inventor is unknown various people have tried to impersonate Satoshi but unsuccessfully. Craig’s story received some support from his colleagues, however, there are a lot of critics who are not convinced with his claims.

## Wright vs. Kleiman

It is believed that Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman worked together in Satoshi Nakamoto’s team and together mined BTC at the very beginning of cryptocurrency. In the year 2018 Craig was accused by Dave Kleiman’s brother in stealing intellectual property from Dave. According to Ira Kleiman, the brother, Wright stole mined funds (around 500,000 BTC) with a total value of more than one billion dollars. The trial will start on July, 6.

## Case significance

This case may set a legal precedent. This trial will show some ways of solving the conversion issue. “Conversion is an unauthorized act that deprives a person of his [personal, not real] property permanently or for an indefinite time.”
Consequently, the court will also have to decide whether Bitcoin is a kind of property or money. However, the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto will probably be hidden still, this case will not help to reveal it.

## Who is Craig Wright

Craig Wright is a very well recognized person now. Initially Australian computer scientist, now he is claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of Bitcoin. Since the real identity of Bitcoin inventor is unknown various people have tried to impersonate Satoshi but unsuccessfully. Craig’s story received some support from his colleagues, however, there are a lot of critics who are not convinced with his claims.

## Wright vs. Kleiman

It is believed that Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman worked together in Satoshi Nakamoto’s team and together mined BTC at the very beginning of cryptocurrency. In the year 2018 Craig was accused by Dave Kleiman’s brother in stealing intellectual property from Dave. According to Ira Kleiman, the brother, Wright stole mined funds (around 500,000 BTC) with a total value of more than one billion dollars. The trial will start on July, 6.

## Case significance

This case may set a legal precedent. This trial will show some ways of solving the conversion issue. “Conversion is an unauthorized act that deprives a person of his [personal, not real] property permanently or for an indefinite time.”
Consequently, the court will also have to decide whether Bitcoin is a kind of property or money. However, the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto will probably be hidden still, this case will not help to reveal it.

## Who is Craig Wright

Craig Wright is a very well recognized person now. Initially Australian computer scientist, now he is claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of Bitcoin. Since the real identity of Bitcoin inventor is unknown various people have tried to impersonate Satoshi but unsuccessfully. Craig’s story received some support from his colleagues, however, there are a lot of critics who are not convinced with his claims.

## Wright vs. Kleiman

It is believed that Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman worked together in Satoshi Nakamoto’s team and together mined BTC at the very beginning of cryptocurrency. In the year 2018 Craig was accused by Dave Kleiman’s brother in stealing intellectual property from Dave. According to Ira Kleiman, the brother, Wright stole mined funds (around 500,000 BTC) with a total value of more than one billion dollars. The trial will start on July, 6.

## Case significance

This case may set a legal precedent. This trial will show some ways of solving the conversion issue. “Conversion is an unauthorized act that deprives a person of his [personal, not real] property permanently or for an indefinite time.”
Consequently, the court will also have to decide whether Bitcoin is a kind of property or money. However, the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto will probably be hidden still, this case will not help to reveal it.
Think of the Satoshi as the “cents” part of bitcoin. But unlike a penny that represents 0.01 USD, Satoshi represents roughly 0.00000001 BTC — or bitcoin to its eighth decimal. We’ve put together the quick conversion table below to help you visualize numbers so small. Satoshi to bitcoin conversion Bitcoin to Satoshi Conversion = Sats: What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is the first digital currency. It uses the peer-to-peer protocol to make instant payments. It was created in 2009 by an anonymous developer (or a group of developers) whose pseudonym is Satoshi Nakamoto. Satoshi BTC (Bitcoin) 1 Satoshi: 0.00000001 BTC: 10 Satoshi: 0.00000010 BTC: 100 Satoshi: 0.00000100 BTC: 1,000 Satoshi: 0.00001000 BTC: 10,000 Satoshi: 0.00010000 BTC The Bitcoin increased by 2.65% on Tuesday 21st of July 2020. Let's see on yesterday. The average value Bitcoin price for convert (or exchange rate) during the day was $9,293.37. Max. BTC price was$9,423.36. Min. Bitcoin value was \$9,174.03. What is a Satoshi? Each bitcoin (BTC) is divisible to the 8th decimal place, so each BTC can be split into 100,000,000 units. Each unit of bitcoin, or 0.00000001 bitcoin, is called a satoshi.A Satoshi is the smallest unit of Bitcoin.