Enjoy =) Larry Page = $41 billion Bill Gates = $86 billion All Cryptocurrency's = $200 billion Amazon = $402 billion Apple = $730 billion USD in circulation = $1,500 billion Gold Market Cap = $8,200 billion Physical Money (notes/coins) = $31,200 billion Stock Markets = $66,800 billion All U.S. Money (bank deposits/loans) = $83,000 billion
This doesn't include ALL future's exchanges (such as CME Group), ALL options exchanges, ALL stock exchanges, ALL forex exchanges.
This doesn't include ALL celebrities, ALL inventors (such as Elon Musk, and so on), ALL corporations/companies.
This doesn't include ALL and each and every single country that ALSO has examples of all of the above.
This doesn't include Visa/Mastercard/Discovery/AmericanExpress transactions.
But why doesn't EVERYBODY just convert ALL of the world's money of the ENTIRE PLANET to paying each other in gold? Gold is a great 'store of value', isn't it? Yes, it sure has value, but because it is inconvenient, hard to transport, slow, not divisible (without a third party), and difficult to keep from being robbed (without a third party), that is why the entire planet does not transact in gold, and hence why Gold's market capitalization is only $8,200 billion.
So, how do we fix this? How can we get more people to transact in gold? How can we convince people to say "Fuck transacting in everything other than gold"?
The only way this is possible, is if gold was more convenient to transact with than everything else, especially VISA. Which is impossible. You can't pay for a $100.37 item on Amazon.com, through the internet, without a third party, in a split second, by using gold.
Then, what SHOULD we use? Well.. VISA can do 80,000 transactions per second peak velocity.
Bitcoin (whitepaper version), can do 1,000,000 transactions per second CHEAPER than VISA. (It can probably do even more in the future), it's also at the same time a tangible currency (that takes trillions of video cards to create one single uncounterfeitable coin) aka "store of value".
And what does 1,000,000 transactions per second mean? It means that ALL of the world (as described above) EASILY has room to enter the system. And not only is it a payment system, it is a currency ("store of value"). You literally HAVE tangible coins. Not merely a payment system like Paypal, or VISA, but a 2-in-1. It is a CURRENCY that is also in itself a PAYMENT SYSTEM that doesn't require a third party.
So, for example's sake, let's add up all of the money (listed above), and "flood" the entire planet into using a currency ("store of value"), that is ALSO a payment system in itself BY DESIGN, able to send money to the other side of the planet, instantly, without needing to use ANY kind of outside third party, because the coin ITSELF is the third party IF it is the Whitepaper Version of Bitcoin. But if the witness data (aka transaction signatures) are segregated from the chain, then the coin (economy itself) is no longer ITS' OWN "third party" anymore, but prone to whoever wants to take advantage of the segregated witness data (whether its blockstream, bitcoin core, AXA, miners, or banks, doesn't matter). Because when the chain of digital signatures is no longer part of the blockchain, the incentive to take advantage of the system and introduce a traditional (bankegovernment) "third party" is now profitable/possible to do so. Whereas, originally, without SegWit, anybody who tried to do this would infinitely lose money in trying to do so---aka mining coins was more profitable than trying to do a 51% attack. Hence, with SegWit, we introduce a loop-hole into Bitcoin, allowing double spending of anyone's transactions, reversing anyone's transactions, halting anyone's transactions, freezing anyone's transactions, charge-backs, etc.
Bitcoin (whitepaper version) = $10.7 Billion current total market capital.
Now introduce $191,659 billion (see above) of the world's money to a ONE WORLD CURRENCY, that DOES NOT REQUIRE A THIRD PARTY.
$191,659 billion / $10.7 billion = 17,912x
17,912 x $650 current value of Bitcoin (whitepaper version) = $11,642,800 , for one coin.
Therefore, no one (on a global scale) will use a currency (aka "store of value") where you have to pay $5-$1000 for each transaction... Walmart does not profit from selling chewing gum for $.99 cents and paying a $5 network fee (at minimum).
90% of people who buy Bitcoin don't even know what is "Segwit" or "Blockstream" or "Satoshi" or "Whitepaper". They think it's the 'norm' that it takes hours upon hours (or even days) to get their Bitcoin. They assume that because it's "hard to get", then that is why it is valuable. Upon all of the other reasons. It's all media. It is exactly what BitConnect is doing. The only reason people are buying it, is because everyone is gambling, but are fully convinced that it is "investing". This is why Bitcoin is not going to lose its' value instantly. Nor is it going to skyrocket to an astronomical value like $100,000 instantly. But it will most definitely NOT be used as replacement currency by Walmart, Amazon, Sams Club, Coca Cola, Target, etc, and so on, it goes on FOREVER. All of these companies use VISA.
And this is why Bitcoin (Whitepaper version) is literally full-stop replacing VISA over the next decade.
But what about other coins that already exist with little to no fees, instant transactions and end up having little to no traction and don't look like anyone cares about them??
There are huge reasons why they have little to no traction and look like no one cares about them.
Ethereum = does not have a fixed supply. It does not matter how fast transactions are if a coin's end-total-supply is inflationary. (Lipstick on a pig).
Ripple = 70% of the supply is held by a third-party. (Banker coin).
Litecoin = has a Script hashing algorithm, instead of SHA-256 hashing algorithm. (Coins have weaker security model--aka potential to be counterfeited several decades from now when we have stronger computers).
Dash = has master node system. The more DASH anyone has, the more master nodes they have. Over 70 percent of coins are located in just 2 percent of wallets, with 20 percent more in 1 percent of wallets. This actually means that just 3 percent of Dash owners control more than 90 percent of coins. This distribution is way to uniform and unnatural, and opens a highway for price manipulations.
NEO, NEM, QTUM, OmiseGo, IOTA = not mined coins. AKA no proof of work. Are ALL coins that were not made with any kind of "proof of work". They are literally made from nothing. (It takes TRILLIONS of video cards to make one single Bitcoin). These coins rely on security systems that do not solve the Byzantine Generals problem. (Aka, the "third party" for these coins is the creators---hence these coins have a flawed security model in who has say in what happens. Whereas, the "third party" for Bitcoin (whitepaper version) is the freemarket (the economy itself), the people who work and/or buy in to the system.). But all of these coins without proof of work rely on a closed-source system to prevent double spends. In other words, they are ALL more or less improved versions of Ripple.
Monero = severe scaling issues, the transactions are far bigger than what Moore's Law can keep up with. (Technology wouldn't be able to catch up with how much bandwidth/storage space is needed to run this network, regardless of how many years into the future we go).
These are the top ones I felt like choosing. I can explain every coin on the list. But the entire point, is that for EVERY one of these coins, Bitcoin Cash does it better. Bitcoin Cash has 0-conf (Bitcoin used to have it until the system could not accept anymore transactions and started backlogging transactions---aka full blocks). Bitcoin Cash has scripting functions (aka smart contracts). Bitcoin used to have it when the transaction fees only cost 1-5 cents per block... But no one wants to use the scripting functions anymore when you have to pay $5-$100 for each block.
Bitcoin (whitepaper version) does much more efficiently what EVERY other coin attempts to do. Whether it's security, transaction capacity, inflation control, storage, or the solving of the byzantine generals problem. Bitcoin (whitepaper version) does it flawlessly. Every other coin has flaws to some degree or another that only succeed in proving that Bitcoin (whitepaper version) is the most secure system possible.
There is a reason why Satoshi did not design Bitcoin (whitepaper version) like any of the other coins. It is because he already thought about those other designs.
03-12 10:04 - 'Yes their network is centralized as of now but they have a 55 page whitepaper on Coordicide and are testing their solutions for the Byzantine generals problem. Just check out their white paper... / [link] / The tech is no...' by /u/McGruber220 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 268-278min
''' Yes their network is centralized as of now but they have a 55 page whitepaper on Coordicide and are testing their solutions for the Byzantine generals problem. Just check out their white paper... [link]1 The tech is not crap, Iota is faster, cheaper and does not require mining. The whole PoW Consensus is old tech and will eventually be replaced by newer generation solutions. Yes they have had their problems, its a relatively new project but that does not mean they are a scam or have bad tech. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: McGruber220 1: f*le*.i*ta.org*papers/2*200*20_C*o*dic*d**WP.p*f Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
Bitcoin answers the Byzantine General’s problem, but could it also answer the [Drake Question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) too?
Bitcoin answers the Byzantine General’s problem, but could it also answer the Drake Question too? If we use the Drake Equation to estimate the number of intelligent and technically advanced civilizations on other planets, we are left with a question as to why we have not found alien life. This results in a very frightening conclusion that there must be a Great Filter at some point that acts as an impassable barrier. Often, this is speculated something like a biological filter—such as the jump from one to multicellular organisms, or where a civilization develops the capacity to destroy itself through nuclear warfare and then promptly does so... But what if the filter is not resource depletion, biological hurdles, or nuclear holocaust, but what if it is instead an economic filter? We can easily see that government’s grow to whatever size they are allowed to grow by economic reality. That is, governments grow and grow, inefficiently consuming resources and inhibition progress, but eventually they seem to hit a wall and collapse as inflationary pressures build under the economic pressure of poor financial management until people exit that currency in favor of another. In other words, government’s ability to continue grow is limited only by their ability to maintain control over the economy they parasitically leech off of. We can imagine a situation where a failing government that has full control over what currency its underlying economy uses to the point where they could prevent people from switching to another fallback currency, and thus short circuiting the hyperinflation failsafe that keeps government economically constrained from the runaway destruction of resources. It is fairly clear that the monetary trend before Bitcoin was toward centralization and digitization—e.g. the European countries transitioning to use the Euro. Eventually, this would have resulted in a currency monopoly (as money is a natural monopolistic market), of which some governmental body would have absolute control. In this situation, with no breaker-like failsafe in the form of hyperinflation, it is reasonable to conclude such government would grow and grow until it strangles the underlying economy past the point of what would be hyperinflation failure into what is a more permanent economic death that spirals into a socialist dystopia until there is no productivity left for the parasite to leech off of. But we have Bitcoin, so that scenario can never happen here on our planet. Perhaps other alien worlds developed a comparable level of technological advancement only to have all of that progress destroyed by some alien version of Karl Marx and authoritarian governments that forced economic control upon their alien worlds through control of whatever centralized currency they used to the point of total annihilation. What if we passed the Great Filter in 2009?
A brilliant ELI5 explanation of how Bitcoin solves the Byzantine Generals problem, by Satoshi N.
A number of Byzantine Generals each have a computer and want to attack the King's wi-fi by brute forcing the password, which they've learned is a certain number of characters in length. Once they stimulate the network to generate a packet, they must crack the password within a limited time to break in and erase the logs, otherwise they will be discovered and get in trouble. They only have enough CPU power to crack it fast enough if a majority of them attack at the same time. They don't particularly care when the attack will be, just that they all agree. It has been decided that anyone who feels like it will announce a time, and whatever time is heard first will be the official attack time. The problem is that the network is not instantaneous, and if two generals announce different attack times at close to the same time, some may hear one first and others hear the other first. They use a proof-of-work chain to solve the problem. Once each general receives whatever attack time he hears first, he sets his computer to solve an extremely difficult proof-of-work problem that includes the attack time in its hash. The proof-of-work is so difficult, it's expected to take 10 minutes of them all working at once before one of them finds a solution. Once one of the generals finds a proof-of-work, he broadcasts it to the network, and everyone changes their current proof-of-work computation to include that proof-of-work in the hash they're working on. If anyone was working on a different attack time, they switch to this one, because its proof-of-work chain is now longer. After two hours, one attack time should be hashed by a chain of 12 proofs-of-work. Every general, just by verifying the difficulty of the proof-of-work chain, can estimate how much parallel CPU power per hour was expended on it and see that it must have required the majority of the computers to produce that much proof-of-work in the allotted time. They had to all have seen it because the proof-of-work is proof that they worked on it. If the CPU power exhibited by the proof-of-work chain is sufficient to crack the password, they can safely attack at the agreed time.
Bitcoin is secure because it solves the Byzantine Generals Problem. We should distinguish, however, the Byzantine Generals problem from the Mad Generals Problem, which it cannot solve. Bitcoin cannot make compromised computers safe.
The foundation of Bitcoin's security is that it solves the Byzantine Generals Problem (or Two Generals Problem) in a practical way. The problem is the challenge of taking a safe decision while communicating with other parties over an insecure network. I think it is appropiate to link to the inventors own words: https://bitcointalk.org/oldSiteFiles/byzantine.html However, there needs an important distinction to be made: People expect Bitcoin somehow to be secure on arbitrary devices because its cryptographic solution. This does not hold, as computing safely on a compromised system is not the Byzantine General's problem, and bitcoin does not solve it. In fact, the latter problem is unsolvable. Assume you have the setup with the Byzantine Generals, and the generals have set up a secure communication method using Bitcoin's blockchain technology. Now assume that one general is mad. That means:
He cannot trust is own perceptions, as he is having hallucinations.
He cannot control what he says or does.
He cannot think or decide rationally.
Is such a general to be trusted? No way. He would lead an army straight into perishing. Now, the fact is that: If your local computer is compromised by malware or anything else, it is just like a mad general. You can't trust what it displays, not what it sends to others over the network, you cannot trust that it keeps your keystrokes confidential if you are entering passwords, and you cannot even trust that it computes 1 + 3 = 4 correctly. You cannot trust in it at all, and Bitcoin will not help with that.
Bitcoin solves the Byzantine General's Problem. Where that problem doesn't exist, Bitcoin is a bad fit.
Bitcoin's brilliance is that it allows commerce between untrusted parties without an intermediary. For the record I think this is an invention whose promise we have not even begun to understand. However. Bitcoin advocates seem to argue that all transactions should be carried out on the blockchain and that all commerce should be completely decentralized. Advocates seem to want a completely decentralized economy regardless of cost, feasibility, or even need. Thus many bash the idea of off-blockchain transactions as they involve "centralization." I think this is unrealistic and a poor application of the tech. As a way of establishing an accounting balance between two or more trusted partners, Bitcoin is extremely inefficient and cannot be made more efficient than traditional transaction processing databases. Not even close. Why? Because the solution to the Byzantine General's Problem (mining) is expensive by design: as you lower the cost to mine, you lower network security. A secure blockchain requires expensive mining. Not all parties are untrustworthy. To take the most extreme example, imagine a multinational trying to use Bitcoin for its internal accounting. When the factory in Manila finishes product, it "sells" the product to the warehouse in Kuala Lumpur through internal accounting processes. If these trusted transactions were forced into the Bitcoin ecosystem (ie the warehouse "buys" the product from the factory with Bitcoin using an on-blockchain transaction), they would be extremely costly as there could easily be millions or billions of such transactions for a typical multinational, depending on their accounting needs. Two arms of a single multinational is an extreme example of commerce that doesn't involve trustlessness but others abound. Trust lies on a spectrum, and yes, it usually involves an intermediary. In the case of the factory and the warehouse, the intermediary is the parent company. But many suppliers and customers have "open books" systems with transparent accounting between them. I suspect Apple/FoxConn to be like this. Still others are less open and offer less trust, like a bank where two parties bank together: the fact that we share a trusted third party reduces friction IRL such that "establishing trust" is too expensive relative to the need. TL;DR: When the business / social need already demands trust and transparency, adding a costly layer to establish trust is wasteful and inefficient. Discuss.
The problem of achieving such a consensus dates back to 1978, well before the development of the first blockchain. Known as the Byzantine Generals’ Problem, here is a simple way of explaining it: Imagine a nation with four generals, each with their own army. Byzantine Generals Problem and Bitcoin. The above dilemma isn’t necessarily limited to just two generals. In a distributed network such as that of Bitcoin’s, all participants and nodes are essentially of equally hierarchy. So, now instead of needing to reach verification and agreement between two parties, we need all participants to approve A number of Byzantine Generals each have a computer and want to attack the King's wi-fi by brute forcing the password, which they've learned is a certain number of characters in length. Once they stimulate the network to generate a packet, they must crack the password within a limited time to break in and erase the logs, lest they be discovered. Bitcoin’s Consensus and the Blockchain Solution. In relation to the Byzantine General’s problem, Bitcoin started a “consensus algorithm” that would address the issue. All the members of the network (the Byzantine army) needs to agree on a single value (the Army’s next plan of action). Bitcoin and the Byzantine Generals Problem In fault-tolerant computer systems, and in particular distributed computing systems, Byzantine fault tolerance is the characteristic of a system that tolerates the class of failures known as the Byzantine Generals' Problem , which is a generalized version of the Two Generals' Problem .
The Byzantine Generals Problem - An Intro To Blockchain
These questions are from the MOOC sessions 7.2, 8.2, and 9.2 covering the Byzantine Generals' Problem, which took place on February 26th 2017, September 15th 2017, and February 23rd 2018 respectively. Steve Wozniak interview: Blockchain technology, AI, Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 Steve Wozniak Live 13,922 watching Live now Meetup #AperiTech Online Edition 18/04/2020 - BEN Italia - Bitcoin ... The Byzantine Generals Problem and Blockchain Consensus Models ... Avery Carter 16,581 views. 18:25. Bitcoin and Byzantine Generals Programmer explains - Duration: 23:39. Ivan on Tech 34,321 views. The Byzantine Generals Problem and Blockchain Consensus Models ... Bitcoin and Byzantine Generals ... 23:39. Ivan on Tech Recommended for you. 23:39. Two Generals' Problem Explained - Duration: ... Byzantine General Problem Noman Islam. ... Byzantine Fault Tolerance in Bitcoin - Duration: ... Tomer Ben David 3,974 views. 11:41. Bitcoin and Byzantine Generals Programmer explains - Duration ...