[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Bram Cohen's Bitcoin fork (new pow)
The following post by Taidiji is being replicated because the post has been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7z2d1y The original post's content was as follows:
https://chia.net/faq/index.html It'a not a airdrop. They start from genesis with a premine. Inflation seems to be like in Monero rather than fixed supply (constantly diminishing). But if (big if) it worked as promised, we could eventually bring it to Bitcoin. Thoughts on possible theoretical downsides?
02-21 05:52 - 'Bram Cohen's Bitcoin fork (new pow)' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/Taidiji removed from /r/Bitcoin within 139-149min
''' [link]1 It'a not a airdrop. They start from genesis with a premine. Inflation seems to be like in Monero rather than fixed supply (constantly diminishing). But if (big if) it worked as promised, we could eventually bring it to Bitcoin. Thoughts on possible theoretical downsides? ''' Bram Cohen's Bitcoin fork (new pow) Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: Taidiji 1: chia**et/fa*/*ndex**tml Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
Fifty Years of Cypherpunk: History, Personalities, And Spread of its ideas
In this review, we tell how the ideas of cypherpunk were born, how they influenced cryptocurrencies, and modern technologies, who formed the basis and why its popularity these days has grown again.
From the early days to today: the chronology of key events of the cypherpunk
In the early 1970s,James Ellis of the UK Government Communications Center put forward the concept of public-key cryptography. In the early 1980s, small groups of hackers, mathematicians and cryptographers began working on the realization of this idea. One of them was an American cryptographer, Ph.D. David Chaum, who is sometimes called the godfather of cypherpunk. This new culture has proclaimed computer technology as a means of destroying state power and centralized management systems.Key figure among the cypherpunk of the 80s — Intel specialist Timothy C. May. His dream was to create a global system that allows anonymous exchange of information. He created the concept of the BlackNet system. In September 1988, May wrote The Crypto-Anarchist Manifesto: people themselves, without politicians, manage their lives, use cryptography, use digital currencies, and other decentralized tools.In 1989,David Chaum founded DigiCash an eCash digital money system with its CyberBucks and with the blind digital signature technology.Since 1992, Timothy May, John Gilmore (Electronic Frontier Foundation), and Eric Hughes (University of California) have begun holding secret meetings and regular PGP-encrypted mailing through anonymous remailer servers. And finally, in 1993 Eric Hughes published a fundamental document of the movement — А Cypherpunk's Manifesto. The importance of confidentiality, anonymous transactions, cryptographic protection — all these ideas were subsequently implemented in cryptocurrencies.The term "cypherpunk" was first used by hacker and programmer Jude Milhon to a group of crypto-anarchists.In 1995,Julian Assange, the creator of WikiLeaks, published his first post in cypherpunk mailing.In 1996,John Young and Deborah Natsios created the Cryptome, which published data related to security, privacy, freedom, cryptography. It is here that subsequently will be published data from the famous Edward Snowden.In 1997, cryptographerDr. Adam Back (you know him as CEO of Blockstream) created Hashcash, a distributed anti-spam mechanism.In 1998, computer engineer Wei Dai published two concepts for creating a b-money digital payment system:
Each member of the system has a copy of the system database with user funds balances (this idea found itself in Bitcoin).
Distributed base, but not everyone has a copy. To maintain the integrity of participants, deposits, fines, and incentives are provided. This was later implemented in the Proof-of-Stake consensus algorithm.
In April 2001,Bram Cohen developed the BitTorrent protocol and application.In 2002,Paul Syverson, Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson presented the alpha version of the anonymity network named TOR Project.In 2004, cypherpunk Hal Finney created the Reusable Proof of Work (RPoW) algorithm. It was based on Adam Back's Hashcash but its drawback was centralization.In 2005, cryptographer Nick Szabo, who developed the concept of smart contracts in the 1990s, announced the creation of Bit Gold — a digital collectible and investment item.In October 2008, legendary Satoshi Nakamoto created themanifesto“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, which refers to the works of the cypherpunk classics Adam Back and Wei Dai.In 2011,Ross William Ulbricht aka Dread Pirate Roberts created the Silk Road, the first major market for illegal goods and services on the darknet.In 2016,Julian Assange released the book "Cypherpunks: Freedom and the future of the Internet."At the beginning of 2018,Pavel Durov, the creator of Telegram, announced the launch of the TON multi-blockchain platform and mentioned his plans to launch TON ICO.In 2019, the Tor Project introduced an open anti-censorship group.
Plenty of services, products, and technologies were inspired by cypherpunk: Cryptocurrencies, HD (Hierarchical Deterministic) crypto wallets, Coin Mixers, ECDHM addresses, Privacy Coins. The ideas of distribution and anonymity were also implemented in the torrents and VPN. You can see the embodiment of cybersecurity ideas in the electronic signatures and protected messengers (Telegram, Signal, and many others).Why there were so many talks about cypherpunk this spring?In April 2020, Reddit users suggested that the letter from the famous cypherpunks mailing dated September 19, 1999, was written by Satoshi Nakamoto himself (or someone close to him). This letter is about the functioning of ecash. Anonymous (supposed Satoshi) talks about the "public double-spending database" and Wei Dai's b-money as a possible foundation for ecash.In addition, researchers of the mystery "Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?" periodically make some noise and discover the next "secret" about one or another legendary cypherpunks. So, in May 2020, Adam Back wrote in response to videos and new hype discussions that, despite some coincidences, he is not Satoshi.Other heroes of the scene are not idle too: in April 2020, David Chaum received $9.7 million during the presale of the confidential coin xx, created to encourage venture investors.
As you can see from the Satoshi Nakamoto's mentions and from the stories of DigiCash, Hashcash, RPoW, Bit Gold, the movement of cypherpunk influenced a lot the emergence of cryptocurrencies. As governments and corporations restrict freedom and interfere with confidentiality, cypherpunk ideas will periodically rise in popularity. And this confrontation will not end in the coming decades.
Is it possible to objectively discuss things without getting dragged to the "Dragons Den"?
The computer science debates about the best ways to scale Bitcoin are far too important for us to take “sides”. “Beating” the other guy doesn’t serve any of us, and it doesn’t serve Bitcoin. In these discussions we need to be as sure as possible that we are not just winning an argument, or making talking points but that we are factually correct. One thing everyone should agree on is the need for truthful and factual statements when discussing these important issues. Unfortunately, the Bitcoin community learned some very bad habits from the world of politics. [Disclaimer: I do not work for Blockstream and I never have, just as I did not work for Roger Ver the other day when I defended him against a similar baseless attack about Mt.. Gox https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6846wo/message_to_rogedgvnrqk/ ] For example, it is difficult to have any discussion in Bitcoin without someone bringing up the “Dragon’s Den”. "Dragon’s Den" is brought up as an argument point often by everyone from major minors, to CEOs and analysts. But what do we really know about “Dragon’s Den”? What is the full body of evidence regarding the claims about Dragons Den? Well, it’s pretty simple: 1) One lone LN developer claimed that there was a secret channel used for trolling 2) Someone posted a screenshot showing the existence of the slack channel and some people chatting in it What is absent from this evidence:
There seems to be no evidence that the channel was actually used for the purpose of organizing trolling campaigns (yes, the channel exists)
There seems to be no evidence that a significant number of core developers actually participated in this channel (one core contributor, BTCDrak runs the channel, apparently the name was a play on his own name)
There seems to be no evidence that Blockstream participated in this channel in any meaningful way especially for the purpose of organized trolling
So really, we have CEOs, miners and thousands of people who care passionately about Bitcoin using “Dragon’s Den” as a talking point when really – – – the entire thesis about dragons den comes down to “a guy said”. One doesn’t even have to be critical of the developer who claimed its existence to have doubts about the story. If you look carefully, Joseph Poon never even claimed to have first-hand knowledge about dragons den being used for trolling – he didn’t even mention that he ever visited the channel. One guy saying something doesn’t make it true. One doesn't even have to think that Joseph is a bad actor (and I don't) maybe he was misinformed, didn't think clearly before making his statement, had a misunderstanding or exaggerated. There was a Reddit post asking him to clarify but it doesn't seem he did. So what is Dragon’s Den really? Honestly my best educated guess is that the slack channel simply existed as a place for like-minded individuals to discuss topics and opinions they share an interest in. After it was revealed to the public, the channel was opened to a number of interested/concerned community members to review including me. This was the first time I knew about or entered the channel. What I saw was pretty similar to the regular Slack. Bias against BU? Of course? Bias in favor of the core roadmap? Sure? An organized trolling campaign? Doubtful. My guess is that the channel was similar before it became public. Now it is possible that, as part of an elaborate ruse, participants in the channel have gone and created a new double secret channel where the real trolling is being organized and are still participating in the existing “Dragon’s Den” channel as some sort of theater to throw people off their trail and fool someone like me into posting this. Maybe, maybe, maybe But I doubt it. Occams Razor is a good explanation – the most likely explanation is that it simply people who are like-minded gathering together Just as the most likely explanation for a lot of behavior in Bitcoin is the simple one. I don't think Gavin is in the CIA or Roger is secretly trying to harm Bitcoin or Blockstream is involved in some conspiracy to destroy Bitcoin with AXA and I don't think Bitmain purposely intended to shut down miners (but the risk was still real) and I don't think Greg Maxwell works for the CIA either. People have human faults, they mess up, they are self interested etc. Occasionally they will be behind some elaborate ruse, but usually behavior comes down to just people being people. What about the trolling? Again absence any evidence I think the simplest explanation is that like-minded people hanging around in the channel are likely to react in similar manners to various news and tweets. It’s most likely like “Hey did you see this ridiculous argument John Doe just tweeted?" and then a number of like-minded people make comments on that post. Could this be considered organized trolling? Maybe. Same way posting a tweet on one or the other Reddit sub will cause a dozen people to comment...this seems like organized trolling. Having been attacked, criticized and trolled by many of the same people who are very active in that channel I know how it feels: even half a dozen people can easily make you feel overwhelmed by attackers. Between misconceptions, logical fallacies, name-calling, retweets, reposts and comments for multiple people you can feel like Boromir in the first Lord of the Rings movie with arrow after arrow shot at you. But really – this is just part of the way the Internet works. I once even found myself banned from the entire Slack in question. I annoyed people with my continual calls for compromise as well as occasionally defending people from exactly the type of unfair or inaccurate attack I’m talking about here. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, I put my differences aside with the people at in the channel and since then have had a lot of productive and mutually respectful discussions about this important technology. But core runs this! This is the thing, they really don’t. I tried to get this point across in a recent blog post. Down With Bitcoin Core (as a noun used to describe people) https://medium.com/@brucefenton/down-with-bitcoin-core-as-a-noun-used-to-describe-people-9d76d4b3cbef I know it’s frustrating, and I used to feel the same way as many BU supporters in thinking that “core” was one monolithic, like-minded entity. ** It’s really not. It's just not factual to look at it this way** *Only after a lot of time spending a lot of time meeting with and discussing issues with numerous core and non-core developers did I come to this opinion. * I now think that it is only fair for us to judge individual people on the individual actions that they take. Not actions taken by a group. Worse yet: Some core developers even use this word “core” as a noun to describe people when it suits them. This is equally wrong. Individual people and only individual people should be held accountable for the actions that they actually taken the words that they actually say. If we do that, it’s harder to argue. Groups are easy to hate. It’s very easy to discuss to prescribe opinions or characteristics on “Republicans” or “liberals” or "core" or "btc". If you are running for office, it’s a great idea to use these types of terms: they seek to divide and drive wedges. The world of politics is not that simple: on major issues ranging from the drug war to war, foreign policy and taxes there are vast differences between people who carry the various political labels. An open source project, particularly one as diverse as Bitcoin, has much more nuance than this even. There is definitely no universal “core” opinion. “Core developers” include a wide variety of people: Gavin Andresen, Satoshi Nakamoto, Greg Maxwell, Matt Corallo, Alex Marcos, Peter Todd, Vladimir and many others. It just isn’t accurate or fair to put all people in the same category. What happens if we do start holding individual people accountable for their actions? Well, for one thing, it makes it a lot harder to argue against broad ideas such as “core believes X” or “core failed to X”. If someone claims that the “Dragon’s Den” is some sort of effort by “core”, then the first question should be“Who specifically do you mean by “core””? As far as I can tell the only contributor to the core software project was active in that particular channel is the moderator. In fact, it does not seem likely that even more than a couple other actual core developers ever even visited the channel – – let alone used it or engaged in any sort of organized trolling behavior from it. How many core devs total on the high end even visited? Five? So instead of saying "Dragons Den is a core project to organize trolling" why don't we say "these five people organize trolling"? Well, because it's too damn hard. It's EASY to blame some nameless faceless group, but when you name specific people you usually have to back it up better, so those five people accused would (rightfully) respond "Huh? What evidence do you have of this?" Bram Cohen was caught in this exact situation. Just by being in this now infamous chat channel it was assumed he was a participant in trolling. Why?Because a guy said that the channel exists for trolling If someone has visions of Vladimir or Greg Maxwell sitting around this particular Slack channel planning troll campaigns – – the facts and evidence simply don’t show this to be reflective of reality. So what should we do next? This argument isn’t going to be solved by one post. But what we can all do is work together to discuss things in his fair and accurate of a way as possible. This means holding actual people responsible for actual actions they do. If you don't like the core roadmap, debate it with Nullc, if you don't agree with the people who signed it, take it up with them. If you don't think the peer review process is fair and objective, contribute technically to the discussion. If you don't like the "Dragons Den" then take it up with specific people. What this really ends up looking like is that instead of being able to say "Dragons Den is a massive troll army run by core" it ends up more like "BTCDrak and MrHodl and Alp are in a channel and I don't like what they tweeted". That second statement doesn't have the bite of the first....but it's true. Working for better standards also means we should really avoid claims about either "side" unless they are backed by evidence and relevant to the discussion. In fact, we shouldn’t even be having “sides” at all. We are here to change the world. No one likes the bickering. Many don't participate...but almost all of us support it at some point. Whether it's up-voting a divisive post, sharing a meme attacking the other guys or using terms designed to place people in camps, we contribute even when we don't mean to. What would happen if we all decided to no longer participate in division? What if we down voted every comment that attacks individuals or which is divisive and we upvoted everything positive? What if we kept scientific debate more scientific? Every piece of data and information in this discussion should be analyzed independently. Independent of the source ended up dependent of what our own motivations or narrative might be. Anytime we engage in using terms designed to “beat” the other side red division, we don’t win paragraph we win and Bitcoin wins by us all working together to be as accurate and fair as possible.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
Creator of Bittorrent Thinks He Can Kill Bitcoin With Chia, a Burstcoin (BURST) Copycat
https://preview.redd.it/snvu0ixss9521.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=07d3a96392b8e6b13a827e387f1a8b272471595c https://cryptoiq.co/creator-of-bittorrent-thinks-he-can-kill-bitcoin-with-chia-a-burstcoin-burst-copycat/ Bram Cohen, the creator of the popular peer to peer torrenting software BitTorrent, is creating a cryptocurrency called Chia. This new cryptocurrency will use Proof of Capacity (PoC), an algorithm perfected by Burstcoin (BURST). Breaker incorrectly reports that PoC, which Cohen is calling Proof of Space, is a new algorithm developed by Cohen. Further, Breaker writes that Chia could kill Bitcoin. It is unlikely that Chia will even be competitive with Burstcoin(BURST), which has a $9 million market cap, let alone Bitcoin, as we’ll now explain. The crypto space is unfortunately filled with copycat devs who make copycat cryptocurrencies, and this Chia situation appears to be a good example. Burstcoin(BURST)has a strong community of Cypherpunks and has been using PoC since 2014. If Cohen truly cared about the adoption of PoC crypto, he should have jumped on the Burstcoin(BURST) boat instead of trying to create a different cryptocurrency that would compete with it. Chia is advertised as being a “green cryptocurrency,” similar to how stores often have an organic foods section. Green goods and services are big money in the current economy because slapping a green brand on something means environmental and health enthusiasts automatically flock to it. The greenness of Chia is entirely derived from PoC, which Burstcoin (BURST) has already been doing since 2014. Perhaps the Burstcoin (BURST) community should one-up Cohen and do a green advertising campaign before Chia launches since the method of branding is the only advantage that Chia has. Indeed, PoC is environmentally friendly and uses practically no electricity, which also makes Burstcoin (BURST) one of the only profitable cryptocurrencies to mine on personal computers. PoC cryptocurrencies read cryptographic hashes from a plot in a hard drive, rather than calculating new cryptographic hashes all the time like with Proof of Work (PoW). The miner who finds the answer the quickest in their hard drive gets the block reward. Since more hard drive space equals more answers, more hard drive space leads to more block rewards. The Burstcoin(BURST) mining network has 230,000 TB (230 PB) of hard drive space at this time, driven by a strong community. It seems unlikely Chia would ever exceed that number since people interested in PoC already mine Burstcoin (BURST), and would not abandon Burstcoin (BURST) for a copycat. Cohen incorrectly argues that miners would not continuously expand their mining operations with PoC. “The idea is that you’re leveraging this resource of storage capacity, and people already have ludicrous amounts of excess storage on their laptops, and other places, which is just not being utilized,” he said. “There is so much of that already that it should eventually reach the point where if you were buying new hard drives for the purpose of farming, it would lose you money”. The fact is that serious Burstcoin(BURST) miners regularly buy petabytesPB of new hard drive space to maximize revenue, and Chia miners would act no differently if Chia catches on. The one possible difference between Burstcoin (BURST) and Chia is that Cohen is trying to prevent a “re-mining from genesis” attack, where a miner could create an entirely new chain starting at the genesis block. If they had enough hard drive power to do this, perhaps they would fork the blockchain. To avoid this attack Cohen says Chia will also integrate “Proof of Time” (PoT). First off, Burstcoin (BURST) has never had issues with this sort of attack in its five years of existence. If someone has a tremendous amount of hard drive space and does PoC mining, it would be absolutely senseless to do this sort of attack since their entire mining farm would become worthless. If the point of the attack was to do a double spend, the coins gained in the double spend would become worthless too. Cohen is trying to prevent an attack that is extremely unlikely since attackers have no incentive to do it. The details about PoT are vague, with it being a parallel process to mining that takes the same amount of time no matter how much hard drive space is used. This would make Chia less efficient than Burstcoin (BURST) and therefore less competitive. Cohen is offering $100,000 to anyone who can develop PoT, making it clear it does not exist yet. Since PoT would probably make Chia less efficient, and it has not been developed yet, and it solves a non-existent problem, the PoT acronym is appropriate. Ultimately, Chia is branded as green money for a digital world, when the reality is Burstcoin (BURST) already is green money for a digital world. Burstcoin (BURST) has a strong reputation, has been continuously running for five 5 years, and has an extremely strong community. It seems unlikely Chia will ever become more popular than Burstcoin (BURST), and unlike the title of the Breaker article indicates, Chia certainly has no chance of killing Bitcoin.
17 hours ago a mysterious redditor posted the following: "Adam Back is trying to get miners to sign a letter to never run Classic" up until 17 hours ago, nobody had any even heard of a letter being shopped around to get miners to not run Classic. this person, whoever you are, clearly knew inside information. they even know the signers on the list and the content of the letter. I found this person's post after the actual letter being published to be 100% credible. then out of nowhere, the letter starts circulating. first in chinese forums by YourBTCC (BTC China)
its extremely obvious that the letter has come from the blockstream bitcoin core side, i mean duh right. but who wrote it? well we already have the redditor above telling us it was adam back. but who else, greg maxwell or core poster boy btcdrak? somebody else? in looking at the anonymous written letter, there are several unique words and sayings in it.
call for consensus
being that btcdrak is the honorary poster boy and known scammer, i started with him. in looking at his comment history, you can see that he always writes hard fork as "hard fork" and NOT "hard-fork". examples:
there are many other examples .sometimes he writes "hardfork" too but he almost never writes "hard-fork" that I can find.... on a side note - I did find this in btcdrak's github which i found to be very strange.
plus many more examples. but this alone doesn't seem to be enough. there has to be more proof of who wrote it. note also that maxwell also writes "hark forks" too, not just with a hypen. plus maxwell doesn't use hyphens inbetween words often, unless its saying hard or soft forks mainly. we know the original redditor said it was adam back, his credibility is 100%, so let's look at adam's writing style.... whoa "hard-forks" are everywhere.
plus many more. there are a few instances where adam writes "hard fork" without the hypen. but there are many examples where he quotes others who write "hard fork" and he explicitly fixes his statement to respond with "hard-fork". here is a example https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/czgmmfp also, it seems adam LOVES hyphens! "seg-wit" "hard-fork" "soft-fork" "alt-coin" "segregated-witness" "counter-intuitive" "opt-in" "extension-blocks" "non-upgraded" plus more! i mean he just loves to write with hyphens. then check this out, even on twitter adam back writes "hard-forks" a lot! examples
plus more! here we have a mysterious redditor giving us 100% unreleased news of a letter written by adam back. then through writing style analysis we see that adam back is the most likely candidate through process of elimination from the blockstream team. and also just to solidify the claim that adam back did in fact shop around this letter and actually write it, let's go back to who first were the ones to publish it. BTC China! who works for btc china, SAMSON MOW who is the COO. he is also a signer on the medium post. and what happened just 2 days ago, MOW wrote against bitcoin classic on the bitcoin dev mailing list here https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012412.html and it was posted to reddit here https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/44vosl/samson_mow_of_btcc_says_most_companies_listed_on/ and who was all up in the thread with btc china
PSA: Bram Cohen (creator of bittorrent) is NOT a supporter of Bitcoin and should NOT be trusted as an "authority"
I see Bram Cohen brought up on \r\bitcoin as some kind of important figure in Bitcoin. He's not. He wasn't involved in the early years, has a long history of viewing it negatively, and in general should not be trusted. I'm putting this here for new people who don't know any better and might confuse "Bittorrent's creator" with "someone you should listen to about Bitcoin".
Amir Taaki - Breaking Bitcoin presentation (transcript)
Below I transcribed Amir's talk from Breaking Bitcoin (see previous post here, start of presentation (youtube): here). Excuse the errors (will fix if you point me to them). What was most interesting for me:
Amir tries to influence the world (on global scale) by introducing high tech projects that will help ordinary people - he is collecting hackers to work on projects (CTRL-F "academy")
one of those projects is using Bitcoin in local economies (in combination with supplementary systems (CTRL-F "vouchers")
interesting background - Skinner vs Mumford; open source software movement
Amir: Thank you for having me here. I believe that ideas play an important role in shaping human history. What I want to talk about is how technology has been shaped by key ideas. In particular how certain mechanical ideas of human society got mixed up with with politics and technology. What I want to talk about is the free technology movement. It was a movement that showed great potential promise to liberate humanity. At the heart of it was a idea that technology offered a new way to construct a radially different kind of society that never before was possible in history, this movement was influenced by the visions of early scientists who believed in the power of computer technology not just to serve large industry and military but everybody to have access to this new power. Influenced of by the 60s counterculture, this movement went on to develop the first personal computers. But that's not the end of the story because this radical vision mutated into the idea of self-regulating systems which see human beings as object managed by computer algorithms. In this vision, the value of human ideas to transform the world was diminished into a strange kind of consensus where everybody satisfies their personal desires. We now find ourselves in a strange static dreamworld while dark forces are returning to threaten to penetrate our reality and all of the dreams of the techno-utopiasts play the role in creating this fake virtual world in which human beings driven by desires, devoid of all sense of higher purpose become slaves to algorithms and vast computer intelligences. What is interesting about this story is the significance it has for Bitcoin. A project which is created for the purpose of creating a decentralized peer-to-peer money that cannot be controlled by governments and central banks but which now finds itself monopolized by large mining cartels. A lack of vision to guide the project forwards and increasing irrelevance in a world facing a global breakup of power. Lastly I want to explain my project to revitalize the free technology movement to formulate a wider vision to restore back the potential of the technology to transform human society and train the next generation of revolutionary hackers dedicated to the cause of using the technology to support the cause of freedom. My aim here is to find sponsors, find the place for establishing our hacker Academy, to find partner organisations to develop new technology projects with and to find people ready to dedicate themselves in advancing the free technology movement. People ready to be at the forefront of writing history. At the heart of this story lies a conflict between two men in 1968. One of them is good B.F. Skinner, the other is good Lewis Mumford. It was one moment when two ideas about how technology could be used to advance human society first XXX ((unintelligible)) to take hold. There's a documentary from this time made in mid-60s called "Towards tomorrow". And in this documentary, it described two possible future visions for human society. In a society where old forms of authority were declining, what would be the way that we could organize masses of human beings in a future society. One of these visions for this society was a world managed by an elite group of technocrats, a specialized elite who managed a large population of passive human beings who constantly needed to be monitored and managed to be able to to keep them happy. B.F. Skinner described a new way of controlling and ordering people. He posed the question in this age of mass democracy and individualism the old forms of coercion was simply not possible and he put forth the idea of using reward. And he described an experiment where you have a cage with a pigeon inside and the pigeon can be trained to peck symbols, buttons, and depending on which symbol they peck, they get a pellet of food. In this way, by giving the pigeons the right reward for the correct behavior, they train the pigeon as a mechanical object. He then took this farther and he went to a mental hospital in San Bernardino in California and in the mental hospital, what they did is they gave the mental patients small reward every time they did a good behavior. With this reward, when it was a lunch time or a dinner time, the patients could sit at a nicer table. So, inside the mental hospital, they created a new ordered hierarchy from a system of reward in which people don't feel controlled but feel empowered. Skinner describes this model as a model for the future of humanity. What's really interesting about this video by Skinner is it there's something very eerily similar to what we see today in which there is a technocratic elite that has interest in politics only in managing human society to keep us happy to keep everything stable and to keep themselves rich. A lot of this was powered in the mid-80s with the fake consumer credit to reward us as a form of social management - much like the experiment with the hospital, the mental hospital. Lewis Mumford put forward an alternative vision for a society. In this video I'm going to show you - he first criticises Skinner and then he puts forward an alternative vision where everybody in the society is a participant. Everybody is an active human being deciding their destiny.
There were many forms the computer could have taken. In 1800s, the computer was proposed by Babbage. And popularized by Ada Lovelace. It was seen as a tool that would have huge social uses and that should be in the hands of many people, but when the computer was first developed during WWII - for cracking German codes for the military and for guiding ballistic missiles - computers became a very large centralized machine. By the 80s, communities of hackers started to emerge which started to be fascinated with these huge machines - which at the time you had to get the time slice, to get the appointment to get to get some time to use the machine - they started to get jobs near these computing devices, because they wanted to know how these machines could work. They started to build their own computers in their garages, in their houses and universities - and that was the birth of the personal computers, the reason why we now have laptops and telephones. What happened was: a lot of big companies started to come along and they started to invest a lot of capital. All of the hacker community - who up until that point had never seen money before in their life - to throw themselves at, at the proprietary industry. And whereas before the culture that had created this personal computers, this liberatory technology, really believed in power to use the technology to improve the humanity for the better, who really believed in free technology, in sharing techniques and code with each other - instead became siloed off. But there was one guy - Richard Stallman - he was just a guy - he found this ethically wrong. If enough people got together, we could give a challenge against the proprietary industry. He made that as a proposal to the community - that it doesn't have to be this way, if we together put our energies we can build our own operating system. A lot of people at that time thought that he was crazy or that his ideas weren't feasible. This is early video of Richard Stallman.
So, in 1991, the cryptography was classified as ammunitions and Philip Zimmermann wrote the first freely available encryption software for anybody to use and he uploaded it to the Internet. The American government arrested him and he was facing a decade in prison. What Philip Zimmerman did was to print the source code of PGP - of this encryption software - which he sold internationally, which is something that in America is protected under the First Amendment. And the American government was realizing that they couldn't continue with the case, they dropped the case. And since that time, because of the action of Philip Zimmermann, software became classified as a form of speech. And cryptography became widely available. It's now reason why cryptography is available everywhere. Also, in early 90s, Stallman has started to piece together his operating system. And by now a community a community of people has emerged around him. It was the birth of Linux - a really important piece of technology. Not just in the free technology world, but in general, in hi-tech space it place a very key role. And that was a rise of the whole bunch of movements: free software movement, hacker movement, crypto-anarchist movement. Movements were invigorated with creating a lot of new ideas and a lot of new concepts about how we could use the technology to shape the world around us. These were collective movements driven by the shared sense of purpose. Towards the end of the 90s (the baby boomer generation), the western society became overly optimistic. Something the Jean Baudrillard called 'the dead of society' and 'obsession with desert-like forms / with the simulacrum'. Stallman free software movement failed to capitalize on institutionalizing his movement. And what happen was what emerged was the open source movement. It was a movement that said: making this technology is not a question of freedom/ethics, it's simply when you have access to source code of a program it's more efficient, it's cheaper, it makes more quality code. I don't think that's true, but that was their argument. One of the main spokesmen was Eric Raymond who released a book called 'A cathedral and a bazaar'. In that book, Eric Raymond has described the open source development philosophy as open bazaar where everybody, dozens or hundreds of people, a wide number of people all collaborated in a horizontal manner. He coined an idea that given enough eyes all bugs are shallow. When we have a piece of source code, if there are enough people - all contributing a small amount of time and looking at the source code - then if there is a bug, that bug will be found. The idea that given a huge amount of people with a small amount of contribution of each, that we can develop projects and advance technology. Then what happened was the biggest event in the modern western history - which was the collapse of the twin towers, the twin idols of capitalism, perfect in a reflections, reaching into the skyline of New York - which realized our deepest most hidden desires to see the destruction of this passive lifeless world. And what it represented was the return of the real (of the) dark forces - that we ignored - back to penetrate into our reality. In early 2000s we saw a lot of optimism and momentum for change. We saw the Arab spring, we saw The occupy, we saw the orange revolutions. In the technology world, we saw a lot of advances, there was a huge amount of optimism for Linux on the desktop. Every year the people were saying: this is going be the year of the desktop. Everybody was waiting for that sudden single breakthrough. One of the major developments in technology world was the confrontation that took place between Hollywood and a Manhattan programmer called Bram Cohen. ((...)) He developed BitTorrent. The concept started with sites like Napster or Kazaa - that were centralized services that were shut down by authorities. Cohen came up with a concept: if enough people downloading files and seeding them at the same time - then the more people that download the file the more that file will become widely distributed in the network. So, that file will become shared in a self-regulating network. It was a big success and the movie studios didn't know what to do about this, they were completely powerless in face of this technology. The idea of creating a functional self-regulating system outside of power proved itself and it's something wildly popular among technologists. The next major development is the shutdown of the Pirate bay which led to the development of the Pirate party that at one point had double digits in elections and even entered into the EU parliament. There is huge momentum behind it. Wikipedia was also developed - the idea that given thousands and thousands of people all contributing small edits, one line at time, could build this huge knowledge resource . Around this movements started to emerge the new priests of this internet-centric decentralization technology - people like Yochai Benkler, academics who would go to conferences and sell this ideology to people. But something strange started to emerge. Wikipedia released statistics about edits on Wikipedia. We found that it was a small group of dedicated people that wrote the majority of Wikipedia, people who really believed in the project and spent all their time writing the majority of the articles on the website. When we started to look closer at these decentralized systems, what we observed was small groups of leaders surrounded by a wider community. In BitTorent, it wasn't that everybody was seeding in the network. Most people, after they downloaded, didn't continue to run the software. In fact, it was a small group of users, who wanted to challenge Hollywood and promote BitTorrent, who would leave their software running seeding torrents. In open source, we observed that there were small groups of dedicated developers in a project surrounded by wider community. And in fact, what Stallman has done was not just to write Linux and put that in the community, but he had written articles, he had written manifestos, he had put forward a vision and an ideology that pulled together enough people and drove this movement of hackers forwards. So what drove these projects for freedom was not a new model or a new technique. It was a vision that pulled together enough people to realize an idea. To understand why Occupy and Arab Spring and orange revolutions and the Pirate Party and a lot of these movements had a huge of amount of will and movement - fail, it's really instructive to understand what happened to Egypt. In Egypt, huge amounts of youths started to mobilize through Facebook and they started to go to this center in Cairo to front the military dictatorship. Huge amount of people died in that struggle. And after they threw out ((?)) the military dictatorship, the youth then sat down and said: "Okay, now what we are gonna do? What's next?". So they started to discuss. And into that, came a group of people, with a vision, with an ideology, that was well organized and able to pull together enough strands of the society behind them. But they could put their vision into power. And that was the Muslim Brotherhood. And then the same youth hood - that kicked out the military dictatorship - came back to the square to ask the military dictatorship to come back and rescue them from the Islamists. At the same time, Satoshi developed Bitcoin. I remember on Satoshi's early website he described it as a peer-to-peer form of money that cannot be controlled by central banks and governments. And it's something that attracted libertarians, cryptographers and hackers. Bitcoin is kind of a technology - free technology project - that was a little late to the party. Interestingly, it finds itself in the same place as the movements that preceded it. The fundamental problem with Bitcoin is not a problem of missing this or that technology, it's a problem of a lack of vision, a lack of how this technology is - And it's not just about Bitcoin - it's something to do with the wider technology movement. We have to understand the global situation now. Humanity is facing a future with a huge amount of suffering. We are facing the threats from terrorism, from immigration. There's the rise of new ideological movements - ISIS just went and took a city in southern Philippines for more than a month - which is right next to Indonesia, the biggest Muslim country in the world. And in Europe the new right movement is getting very strong, organizing training camps, becoming well-organized, getting into political power and well-funded. This is the reality of our situation now. We have to think about how this technologies that we make -, where do they situate themselves in the wider global context. In Rojava, there is also a really important movement with the ideology of democratic confederalism which is the way forward from anarchism. And offers a really good analysis of what is the current society and what is the crisis that we're facing. And how, in that place, revolutionaries from all over the world are going to learning the methodology and ideology of this movement. It's a new emerging movement outside of any one person's control, but new forces can be harnessed. What we have to understand is that anarchist movement and the hacker movement is something deeply connected. The problem with anarchism is that it failed in it's potential to advance humanity forward, it's simply an ideology that no longer is able to work. What we have in Rojava is a libertarian revolution of 5 million people. What is democratic confederalism? It's an ideological movement that opposes the state as a mechanical worldview and sees the nature as something that is divine, that seeks to restore the balance back between internal+subjective and external+material world. The freedom comes from reaching our destiny as human beings, not simply through pleasure seeking. (Liberalism is the destruction of the free society.) And the better humanity it's not simply a happier humanity but stronger freer humanity. The crisis in the West not simply an economic crisis, but social crisis - we're facing a deep cultural issue. All of the ideas in hacker movement - such as BitLaw, digital governance, cryptographic economy, decentralized organization, new economic models, new technical tools - unless we are able to take all of these concepts and put them into a plan, with a sense of direction, that we can put these into practice - then it's something that's going to be lost. Now, what's presenting itself is a massive opportunity for hackers to put their ideas into practice. So, right now we are building a hacker team. There's 3 tasks we have to do: study of all the ideas and concepts in technology. From this study we have to develop a long- term plan. And thirdly, we have to devote ourselves to build the technical base of this new emerging democratic confederalism movement, we have to create revolutionary hackers dedicated to the course. If we don't, then all of the technology we are making is outside of the society, it's a toy, and what is relevant in this world is not making new products to fill the spaces in the environment around us, but using technology to shape politics that influence the world around us. This revolution in North Syria or Rojava is the biggest opportunity in the entire history of modernity. Through this we can give direction to the hacker movement. One of our main projects is a Bitcoin project. We have a nation of 5 million people and - and - and there is a financial situation where they're under financial embargo, they use - , they don't have the financial infrastructure so they use paper money and Syrian Lira is inflating massively. Because there's embargo so you can't send money in and out. Also there is a project to create decentralized economy and there's a lot of real concrete uses for Bitcoin. And also the ideology of the revolutionary nation is in line with the vision and values of the Bitcoin. When we decide to look at deploying Bitcoin, what we realize is that Bitcoin is not ready and there's a lot of new things that need to be developed in Bitcoin, they should make it so it's able to be deployed on a scale of 5 million people. We are assembling a project to deploy Bitcoin as the national currency of Rojava. We want to create new products in practical use on a large scale. Products that solve real problems and serve the cause of freedom. Towards this goal, we're assembling a team of 20 hackers dedicated for two years. We're looking to establish links with companies and sponsors to make this happen. The first step is to establish a hacker's academy in Greece - to train groups of revolutionary self-sufficient hackers that we're going to deploy on projects. Our needs now: partners, sponsors, space, support. Our first plan is to setup exchange shops and localized wallets in Bitcoin where people come buy vouchers and use Bitcoin to create a local Bitcoin market. We have to create brochures, lots of information. Once this system gets bigger, then we also need to think of bigger financial infrastructure - so one of the things is paper wallets. At the moment, 100 thousands paper wallet cost $6000. Unfortunately the counterfeiting measures on the paper wallets aren't very well made. There needs to be a lot research done. There is a small USB device called ESP 12 which can be programmed with micro Python and C and it has on-board Wi-Fi, plus you can fit modules for radio. Through that you can create a large scale payments networks with cheap consumer devices that cost fie dollars each for people to transact bitcoins. There is also a big market for Bitcoin because sending money between Rojava and Istanbul currently costs 5 %. Later, we also can create plastic card system where we print cards and also establish payments network using radio systems. There needs to be a lot of development and investigations in Lightning Networks and other technologies. This is why I [want to ((?))] have a laboratory - if I take a group of people there - I can create all kinds of technology projects and a lot of concepts we've been theorizing for a long time. We can see that it works practically. There is also the project of the Pirates to create liquid democracy - there is a system of local councils in every neighborhood which - , a lot of these digital platforms that have been developed for many years - we can deploy them. There was also the economy being based on cooperatives - all of the ideas about economic management, about collective management of resources about using cryptography and currencies to manage cooperatives. These all things we can deploy - but what it's going to take is a group of people who's doing this research, who's going deep - not only in terms of developing new concepts - but looking back into the literature about what were - , what is the history of the movement, where we situated it and also what are the concepts and how we can apply them towards our goal. I'm gonna to finish my talk on that. Does anybody have questions?
Ideas are not harmless. Ideas can be destructive, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. New ideas run at risk of disturbing the homeostasis that evolved in the environment they contaminate. I worry everyday about what we have created. Inventions can not be put back into the box they came from. As soon as we announce a new invention, we lose control over it. Worse, there is no guarantee that a new invention ends up benefiting humanity in the long run. With the discovery of nuclear weapons we ensured that another great war would be the last one. With the discovery of heroin we ensured the death through addiction of millions. With Bitcoin, we have changed the natural laws that governed the global economy. This will inevitably trigger the largest social upheaval in modern history. Governments know that technology is the most disruptive power in the world. The American government knew this was going to happen. The NSA came up with a theoretical implementation of Bitcoin in 1996. They knew. And they prepared themselves. Today the US government is the owner of 144.336 Bitcoin, or one percent of the total current supply. Don't expect your government to let go of those coins. If the US government would ever see a need to purchase Bitcoin, it's own acquisition of new Bitcoin would inevitably trigger a rise in prices. This was the easiest way for your government to step into the game and preserve its own relevancy in the coming global economy. The official narrative is that Bitcoin surged as a result of the stability found through the closure of Silk Road. The Chinese then stepped into the market and we ended up at 200 dollar a coin. The official narrative is a lie. The sudden massive increase in volume on Chinese Bitcoin exchanges was completely unexplainable. There was no rise in client downloads in China. There was no rise in Bitcoin search volume on Baidu. There was no rise in Bitcoin visits on the Chinese Wikipedia. There was no Chinese bubble. You can all look this up for yourself, and you'll see that I'm right. What happened is that the world's second largest superpower took an emergency response upon discovering that the world's largest superpower seized 1% of the global Bitcoin supply. The closure of Silk Road was never about drugs, it was about seizing Bitcoin without causing a price spike. Who was capable of causing the April 2013 DDOS attacks that brought Mt Gox to its knees, triggering a price collapse? The US government owns a massive botnet. The US government thinks about the long term. Their goal is to make the worldwide adaptation of Bitcoin as little disruptive as possible. They know what's going to happen and the chaos it will cause. We're only barely beginning to understand what we have unleashed. As mentioned earlier, you have no power to stop the use of a technology. Mr. Nobel was horrified to see how dynamite was used, you will be horrified to see how Bitcoin will be used. You can't decide how Bitcoin will be used any more than Bram Cohen could decide what you will and won't get to download with Bittorrent. There is no "Stop" sign that Bitcoin has to obey. There is 32 trillion dollar worth of wealth hidden off shore to avoid paying taxes. This is sooner or later going to end up stored in Bitcoin. People who own Bitcoin will see no need to pay taxes, thus leading to a rise in taxes for people who do pay taxes, thus leading to more people fleeing to Bitcoin. Eventually, this leads to a situation where all financial transactions are done in Bitcoin. Fiat currency is going to be worthless. This is good news for you, but not for the rest of humanity. We are about to witness the largest transfer of wealth in human history. The victims will be those a few years from now who didn't invest and are forced to buy Bitcoin to pay for their groceries when the value of the dollar starts to take a nosedive. How will your neighbor feel when his savings have become worthless and his bank won't let him withdraw the money? How will people in third world countries without access to Bitcoin feel? How will the people of the world feel about people becoming billionaires through sheer luck? Will those people use their power in a responsible manner? You're going to feel thankful for every crash we've had, as every crash encouraged people with a large balance to divest and thereby lead to a more egalitarian distribution of Bitcoin. The problem is nonetheless unavoidable. There will be anonymous Bitcoin billionaires. There will be social and economic chaos. I genuinely hope that I'm wrong and shake my head a few years from now. We can't count on such luck however. Think about what you're going to do. You successfully inverted the global economic order. Now you are at the steering wheel.
Creator of Bittorrent Thinks He Can Kill Bitcoin With Chia, a Burstcoin (BURST) Copycat
https://preview.redd.it/rknht1mht9521.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=1026ea20c81f520ba749f7eb1d00ae9f72099cdf https://cryptoiq.co/creator-of-bittorrent-thinks-he-can-kill-bitcoin-with-chia-a-burstcoin-burst-copycat/ Bram Cohen, the creator of the popular peer to peer torrenting software BitTorrent, is creating a cryptocurrency called Chia. This new cryptocurrency will use Proof of Capacity (PoC), an algorithm perfected by Burstcoin (BURST). Breaker incorrectly reports that PoC, which Cohen is calling Proof of Space, is a new algorithm developed by Cohen. Further, Breaker writes that Chia could kill Bitcoin. It is unlikely that Chia will even be competitive with Burstcoin(BURST), which has a $9 million market cap, let alone Bitcoin, as we’ll now explain. The crypto space is unfortunately filled with copycat devs who make copycat cryptocurrencies, and this Chia situation appears to be a good example. Burstcoin(BURST)has a strong community of Cypherpunks and has been using PoC since 2014. If Cohen truly cared about the adoption of PoC crypto, he should have jumped on the Burstcoin(BURST) boat instead of trying to create a different cryptocurrency that would compete with it. Chia is advertised as being a “green cryptocurrency,” similar to how stores often have an organic foods section. Green goods and services are big money in the current economy because slapping a green brand on something means environmental and health enthusiasts automatically flock to it. The greenness of Chia is entirely derived from PoC, which Burstcoin (BURST) has already been doing since 2014. Perhaps the Burstcoin (BURST) community should one-up Cohen and do a green advertising campaign before Chia launches since the method of branding is the only advantage that Chia has. Indeed, PoC is environmentally friendly and uses practically no electricity, which also makes Burstcoin (BURST) one of the only profitable cryptocurrencies to mine on personal computers. PoC cryptocurrencies read cryptographic hashes from a plot in a hard drive, rather than calculating new cryptographic hashes all the time like with Proof of Work (PoW). The miner who finds the answer the quickest in their hard drive gets the block reward. Since more hard drive space equals more answers, more hard drive space leads to more block rewards. The Burstcoin(BURST) mining network has 230,000 TB (230 PB) of hard drive space at this time, driven by a strong community. It seems unlikely Chia would ever exceed that number since people interested in PoC already mine Burstcoin (BURST), and would not abandon Burstcoin (BURST) for a copycat. Cohen incorrectly argues that miners would not continuously expand their mining operations with PoC. “The idea is that you’re leveraging this resource of storage capacity, and people already have ludicrous amounts of excess storage on their laptops, and other places, which is just not being utilized,” he said. “There is so much of that already that it should eventually reach the point where if you were buying new hard drives for the purpose of farming, it would lose you money”. The fact is that serious Burstcoin(BURST) miners regularly buy petabytesPB of new hard drive space to maximize revenue, and Chia miners would act no differently if Chia catches on. The one possible difference between Burstcoin (BURST) and Chia is that Cohen is trying to prevent a “re-mining from genesis” attack, where a miner could create an entirely new chain starting at the genesis block. If they had enough hard drive power to do this, perhaps they would fork the blockchain. To avoid this attack Cohen says Chia will also integrate “Proof of Time” (PoT). First off, Burstcoin (BURST) has never had issues with this sort of attack in its five years of existence. If someone has a tremendous amount of hard drive space and does PoC mining, it would be absolutely senseless to do this sort of attack since their entire mining farm would become worthless. If the point of the attack was to do a double spend, the coins gained in the double spend would become worthless too. Cohen is trying to prevent an attack that is extremely unlikely since attackers have no incentive to do it. The details about PoT are vague, with it being a parallel process to mining that takes the same amount of time no matter how much hard drive space is used. This would make Chia less efficient than Burstcoin (BURST) and therefore less competitive. Cohen is offering $100,000 to anyone who can develop PoT, making it clear it does not exist yet. Since PoT would probably make Chia less efficient, and it has not been developed yet, and it solves a non-existent problem, the PoT acronym is appropriate. Ultimately, Chia is branded as green money for a digital world, when the reality is Burstcoin (BURST) already is green money for a digital world. Burstcoin (BURST) has a strong reputation, has been continuously running for five 5 years, and has an extremely strong community. It seems unlikely Chia will ever become more popular than Burstcoin (BURST), and unlike the title of the Breaker article indicates, Chia certainly has no chance of killing Bitcoin. comment
Do not underestimate the importance of this group of enthusiasts for the cryptoworld. Surely, they were the beginning of the modern era of cryptography, the rapid growth of which we can see now. The topic of privacy and encryption has always interested specialists and scientists. Modern cryptography was born during the Second World War, as a response to the widespread use of radio. By the time this technology became so popular that small radio stations had become a nightmare for secret military conversations. The United States and Britain began to use the developed mechanisms of encryption and coding, the technology was improved after the war. In the 1970s, the idea of public key encryption appeared on the basis of mathematical calculations. But the real development of cryptography was precisely with the emergence of a network that connects thousands of computers around the world — the Internet. By this time, the issue of privacy was not only interested in government officials involved in security matters, but also ordinary Internet users, as well as computer specialists. The ideas of the 80s about a secure network were to become a reality. At the end of 1992, a group of people called themselves “Cypherpunk” (Cypherpunks), using the words “cypher” and “cyberpunk” — a genre of fiction, which described the technological society of the future. They were people of different professions — Eric Hughes, mathematician, Tim May, businessman, Jude Milhon, hacker, John Gilmore, computer scientist and Sunmicrosystems employee, and their friends . These people disagreed with the government’s desire to gain full control over the Internet and use cyberspace for their own purposes. Thanks to Philip Zimmermann, the PGP program appeared, which provided military-grade encryption capabilities for ordinary people to work with regular documents and e-mail. In order to convey their ideas to other cryptography enthusiasts, the group began to issue regular mailings. Cypherpunks always put confidentiality and personal freedom above any arguments. In 1993, the “Cypherpunk manifesto” was released, in which the main ideas of the group, their principles, which are still relevant today, were presented.“Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something that does not want the whole world to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world. “ Cypherpunks are responsible for the appearance of HashCash, an algorithm for creating blocks, based on verifying the real computing work of the equipment. In 1997, this algorithm was developed to protect electronic correspondence from spam. The idea was to attach a certain “stamp” to the email, that a certain capacity of the computer was spent to send an email, which would make the sending of spam costly and slow. The next year, the concept of the electronic currency B-Money was invented. Then the idea of the POS algorithm appeared. In 2001, Bram Cohen created the P2P protocol and wrote the first BitTorrent client program. The main purpose was to make it possible to download files from different sources simultaneously, speeding up the download time. It is this technology that underlies the modern system of file exchange through torrents.Many members of the group were opposed to the government. Not all liked their ideology, the dissenting members of the intellectual community invented new ways of hacking their ciphers, and cypherpunks created new methods of encryption in order to protect their own ideas. It was in the company of the cypherpunks that a person (or a group of people) appeared, known as Satoshi Nakamoto. The theme of the mystery of this person still gives rise to many rumors and speculations. In 2008, he published a document called “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” Despite numerous criticisms, in 2009 the first Bitcoin block was produced.It is thanks to the cypherpunks that we are obliged to the appearance of modern encryption systems available to the public, the existence of crypto-currencies, as well as to the very idea of crypto-revolution and privacy in the network. And also the ideas of cyberpunk, which today have become a reality. t.me/WhiteBitcoin https://bitwhite.org/
CoinDesk reporter Leigh Cuen is joined by Bram Cohen, author of the BitTorrent protocol and CEO of Chia. In this wide-ranging interview, they talk about Cohen’s early interest in “hard problems,” his unexpected ascent from sketchy to celebrity and much more. Disclosure Read More The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that The inventor of Bittorrent has now turned his attention to blockchain technology and building a greener Bitcoin called Chia.Bram Cohen released Bittorrent to the world in 2004, but, in early 2017, he stepped away from the company he built to focus on blockchain technology. Bram Cohen, BitTorrent’s inventor, was reported to have officially stepped away from the company in mid-August and has continued to pursue his own cryptocurrency project named Chia. However, it appears as though Tron is still interested in Cohen’s works. Bram Cohen has already made an enormous contribution to the decentralized web. As the creator of the BitTorrent protocol, he brought about the golden era of peer-to-peer file-sharing in the early 2000s. Within a year of starting the project in 2003, files shared on BitTorrent made up more than a third of all traffic on […] BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen has taken over as CEO of his current company, Chia Network, CoinDesk has learned. Co-founder Ryan Singer has stepped away from the company to focus on family priorities.
974: Why BitTorrent Founder Bram Cohen Wants A Greener Crypto
Bram Cohen, creator of BitTorrent, talks about Proof of Space and Time, the consensus algorithm for his new Chia Network blockchain. Unsubscribe from Chia News? Cancel ... Conversation with Bram Cohen of BitTorrent and ... Brian Armstrong Coinbase &Tim Draper: crypto matures, ICO v VC, fiat end, bitcoin resiliency ... Creator of BitTorrent and legendary cypherpunk Bram Cohen joins the Whalepool Teamspeak to talk with crypto traders. We covered a wide variety of topics rangin from: - Scaling in bitcoin - hard ... BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen on his bitcoin alternative Chia Network. BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen returns to 'Triangulation' with Jason Howell to talk about Chia Network and how they are ... In this episode, we hang out with Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, to discuss the origins of BitTorrent in the Mojo Nation project, why BitTorrent is still relevant given our increasingly ...