by Mickael Mossesubmitted by williamsouza10 to u/williamsouza10 [link] [comments]
The price of bitcoin jumped significantly on Wednesday after the payment processor Paypal announced cryptocurrency support. The jump in value has pushed a large number of bitcoin holders into a state of profit, according to Glassnode “percent of UTXOs in profit” statistics. Based on the current data, 98% of all bitcoin UTXOs are in a state of profit touching levels previously recorded three years ago in December 2017.
The price of bitcoin (BTC) closed at a high at $13,184 per coin on Wednesday, October 21 following the announcement from Paypal. During the evening trading sessions, the onchain research and analysis firm Glassnode tweeted about the number of bitcoin unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) in profit. A UTXO refers to the amount of bitcoin someone holds that has not been spent and is simply stored in a bitcoin wallet.
“98% of all bitcoin UTXOs are currently in a state of profit,” Glassnode tweeted. “A level not seen since Dec 2017, and typical in previous BTC bull markets.”
Since then the price has dropped a hair but the price of bitcoin (BTC) is still up 4.3% over the last seven days. Long term holders have seen a 72.4% increase during the last 12 months, 34.9% during the last 90-days and 22% against the 30-day span. Glassnode’s onchain stats report, details that the subindex measuring investor “sentiment” increased ending the week “at 70 points.”
A number of crypto analysts and traders believe that bitcoin’s current price range is a key indicator for moving forward. Moreover, BTC’s dominance level, it’s market cap measured against all 7,000+ crypto assets, has risen to 63.2%. The senior financial analyst at Fxpro, Alex Kuptsikevich, believes bitcoin is testing crucial macro levels.
“At current levels, Bitcoin is testing cyclical highs,” Kuptsikevich wrote in a note to investors. “Since the beginning of 2018, it has not been able to gain a foothold at levels above $12,000. It is equally important that at new highs, indicators like the RSI are far from the overbought condition, indicating significant potential for further growth. Closing the week above $12,800 would be the highest level in two and a half years, opening a direct path of growth to the historic highs of $20,000 that we saw three years ago.”
Bitcoin breaking through two round levels of $12k and $13k opens doors for further growth. The current price dynamics led the coin to re-test the peak of july 2019, which at that time was the highest point of the rally. Nowadays, purchases take place against the background of confidence that bitcoin has more and more supporters in the traditional financial world.
Eric Demuth, cofounder and CEO of Bitpanda believes that cryptocurrencies, in general, started to “establish themselves as a trusted asset class of the worldwide financial market such as gold and stocks.” Demuth thinks that the Paypal support announced on Wednesday is just the start, as he believes more large players will be joining the crypto party.
“2020 has shown that crypto is here to stay,” Demuth explained. “There has been a huge inflow of institutional capital as well as record numbers of new retail customers adopting cryptocurrencies. I am certain we will see more big players like Paypal joining the party in 2021.”
Read the article here:https://mickaelmosse.com/price-increase-drives-98-of-bitcoin-holders-into-a-state-of-profit/
And don't miss out on any bitcoin news, daily on the mickaelmosse.com app.
Q: 1) Hello, what's a better strategy for bitcoin holders if it hard forks at 75%? Is it worth holding of the coins in the minority chain? Or better selling them? Will the value of coins in the majority chain be weakened or reinforced? Thank you19. JR13
A: 1) BIP109 does not hard fork at 75%, it hard forks 28 days after 75% has been reached-- so when the hard fork happens, there should be almost zero hash power on the minority chain. So there will not be a minority chain.
If I am wrong and blocks are created on the minority chain, people plan to get enough hash power to replace those blocks with empty blocks, so it is impossible to make any transactions on the minority chain.
Q: 2) if Bitcoin split into two chains, will it cause panic in the market, then the overall market capitalization fell?
A: 2) Bitcoin split into two chains accidentally in March of 2013, and there was panic selling -- the price dropped from $48 to $37 within a few hours. But the mining pools very quickly agreed on which branch of the chain they would support, the problem was resolved within a day, and a week later the price was over $60.
That shows the strength of consensus and incentives-- the mining pools did what was best for Bitcoin because that is what is best for themselves in the long term.
Q: 3) Now it requres 60-70G space for a full node wallet, also it takes severals days for synchronization. Technically, Is it possible in the future that a full node wallet only cost a little space and can be quickly synchronized? (Do not use light wallets and other third party wallets)
A: 3) You can run a pruned node that does not store the full block chain today (I’m running six right now on inexpensive servers around the world to test some new code).
It is technically possible to get fast synchronization without giving up any trust, but it would require miners do more work (they would have to compute and store and validate an “unspent transaction output committment hash” in the block chain). There are also schemes that would give you fast synchronization at a lightweight-wallet level of trust, but worked towards no trust if you were connected to the network for long enough.
Some developers say that you are not really using Bitcoin unless you run a full node, but that is wrong. Bitcoin was designed so that you can make the choice of speed and convenience versus trust. You give up very, very little trust if you run a lightweight wallet that supports multisignature transactions, and I think that is what most people should be running.
Q: 4) What do you think about Ethereum? Can Bitcoin achieve all the same functions claimed by Ethernet? Thank you
A: 4) I think most of the interesting things you can do with Ethereum you can also do with multi-signature Bitcoin transactions. I haven’t seen a really great use of Ethereum yet, and I think there will be a big problem with Ethereum smart contracts that are designed to steal people’s money, because very few people will have the skill necessary to tell if a complicated smart contract is correct.
I’m watching the rootstock.io project, which brings Ethereum contracts to Bitcoin.
Q: 5) Is it possible that Nakamoto may still participate in the development of Bitcoin by a pseudonym? What is the last time he contact you? Will he be back?
A: 5) Yes, it is possible. I tell reporters who ask me about Satoshi:
The idea of Bitcoin is important; who invented it is an interesting mystery, but I think it should remain a mystery until whoever invented it decides to step forward. We should respect Satoshi's privacy.
Q: 6) Now some government can prevent people from accessing foreign information using technical method(like the Great Firewall), people need to get across the wall first if they want to know information abroad. So technically speaking, is it possible that the government could block and damage the usage of bitcoin? If it is, is there any method to get across the wall?
A: 6) If a government controls network access into and out of their country (like the Great Firewall), they could easily block connections to and from today’s Bitcoin peer-to-peer network. Connections are not encrypted in any way, and most connect to port 8333, which would be easy to block.
However, blocking connections inside the country would be much harder. And it only takes one encrypted or satellite or microwave or laser connection that bypasses the firewall to get around the blockage and get blocks and transactions flowing across the border again.
I think governments that decide they don’t like Bitcoin are more likely to pass laws that make it a crime to use a currency other than the official government currency to pay for things.
Q: 7) You insist on hard fork at 75%, while Chinse Mining Pools insist at 90%. So it may be easier to get support from China If Classic changes to 90%. Have you ever considered to communicate with Chinese mine pool( such as convening a meeting) to reduce differences?
A: 7) Yes, I was in Beijing a few weeks ago to better understand what some of the Chinese mining pools are thinking. It was a productive meeting, and I look forward to communicating more with them soon.
Q: 8) How will halving and block size increasing impact the bitcoin price in your opnion? Thanks.
A: 8) The price, today, is a reflection of confidence. If people think Bitcoin will be valuable in the future, they are willing to buy it and hold it.
Everybody knows the halving will happen, so, theoretically, that should not affect today’s price.
I believe that increasing the block size limit would be very good for the price, because Bitcoin is more valuable the more people who are able to use it.
Q: 9) Technically, bitcoin should also have drawbacks. Some disadvantages may be improved in the future , while some may be difficult to improve. What are those shortcomings for bitcoin to hard to improve in your opinon? Are you an optimist thinking that all technical shortcomings are temporary, and they will all likely to be improved in the future?
A: 9) Every successful technology is full of shortcomings. It is always easier to look backwards and see your mistakes. Smart engineers are very good at working around those shortcomings, and wise engineering managers know when to work around a shortcoming to remain compatible with the existing technology and when it makes sense to break compatibility because eliminating a shortcoming would have large benefits.
Q: 10) If there is a kind of altcoin in the future goes beyond Bitcoin, it must has the advantage Bitcoin can not have, right? Conversely, if Bitcoin itself evolves fast, improves and adds new features, it will be difficult to be surpassed and eliminated, right? What does Bitcoin scalability and evolution capability look like?
A: 10) People are funny -- I can imagine an altcoin that has no technology advantages over Bitcoin, but some people prefer it for some reason. I live in a town where a lot of people care a lot about the environment, and I could imagine them deciding to use a “GreenCoin” where all miners must be inspected regularly and must use only solar power.
I think many engineers tend to over-estimate the importance of new features, and under-estimate the importance of reliability, convenience and reputation.
Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be very scalable, and to be able to evolve. I think the best way for any technology to scale and evolve is competition -- make the technology open, and let companies or teams compete to build the most reliable, convienent and secure products. That looks like (and is!) a very messy, chaotic process, but it produces better results, faster, than a single person or team deciding on on approach to solving every problem.
Q: 11) If R3 succeeds, will it challenge bitcoin in transnational remittances?
A: 11) Maybe -- if banks involved in R3 could make it very convenient to get money into and out of their blockchain. They might not be able to do that because of regulations, though. But I don’t know much about the international remittance market and what regulations the banks will have to deal with.
Q: 12) Can blockchain only be secured by mining? Some private blockchain do not have mining property, are they really blockchain?
A: 12) Security is not “yes it is secure” or “no it is not secure.” Proof of work (mining) is the most secure way we know of to secure a blockchain, but there are less secure methods that can work if less security is OK. And less security is OK for some private blockchains because if somebody cheats, they can be taken to court and money can be recovered.
Q: 13) Will public chain, private chain and R3 chain coexist for a long time? Or only one chain survive finally? What is the relationship among Bitcoin block chain, private chains and R3 chain , complementary or competitive? Will Bitcoin block chain eventually win?
A: 13) My guess is all of the “blockchain for everything” excitement will die down in a year or two and a lot of people will be disappointed.
Then a few years later there will be blockchains for everything, running quietly inside stock markets and currency exchanges and lots of other places. Some of them will use the Bitcoin blockchain, some of them won’t, and nobody besides blockchain engineers will care much.
Throughout it all, I think it is most likely Bitcoin continues to grow, hopefully with less drama as it gets bigger and more mature.
Q: 14) Some people think that it is difficult for the outside world to understand the technical details if lightning network is controlled by blockstream or another company, resulting in technological centralization, what’s your opinion?
A: 14) I don’t worry about that, the lightning protocol is being designed in the open as an open standard. It is complicated, but not so complicated only one person or company can understand it.
Q: 15) What is the procedure Bitcoin Core modify the rules? Take the 2M hard fork proposal as an example, I saw there are concerns that if one of the five core developers who have write access reject the proposal will be rejected. So If happens, does that mean the launch hard ford in July will be abandoned? What is percentage of agreement in Core developers to write code for such a major bifurcation matter like 2M hard fork? Are there any specific standards? Or the lead developer has the final decision?
A: 15) That is a good question for the current active Core developers. When I was the lead developer, I would make a final decision if a decision needed to be made.
Q: What do you think about the future of increasing bitcoin block size limit?20. vatten
A: It will happen sooner or later -- almost everybody agrees it must happen. I am still working to make it happen sooner, because the longer it takes, the worse for Bitcoin.
Q: What decision making process you think should be used for future bitcoin development?21. kcb
A: For example, WuJiHan's proposition of service providers and mining pools collecting individual mineuser opinion. Or, a non-profit making standard making committee like IEEE, consists of people with enough expertise in bitcoin and economy, finance?
I think we should look at how development of other very successful technologies works (like email or the http protocol). I am not an expert, but open standards and open processes for participating in creating standards that are either adopted by the market or not (like the IETF process) seem to work the best.
Q: From my experience on Reddit, people now start to understand that evil is not Blockstream/Core's intention. They simply have a very different vision on how Bitcoin network should be running and on how future development should be heading. They do whatever they can to protect their vision, even dirty tricks, because they feel they are bringing justice.22. XRP
Similarly, in Chinese community, we do see the same situation. Many Chinese Bitcoiners that showed strong enthusiasm in the past differ with each other. This even happens among my own real-life friends.
My question is: How can we separate these two groups of people who have widely divergent visions? Bitcoin cannot proceed when carrying two totally different visions.
A: I don’t know! It is always best if everybody is free to work on their own vision, but for some reason some people seem to think that the block size limit will prevent big companies from taking over Bitcoin.
I think all they will accomplish is making the technology much more complicated. And big companies are much better able to deal with and control highly complicated technologies.
Q: Please share your comments on ripple, Mr. Guru.23.Lory
A: I haven’t paid very much attention to Ripple- the last time I looked at it was probably two years ago. Back then I thought they would have trouble with governments wanting to regulate their gateway nodes as money transmitters, but I haven’t even taken the time to see if I was right about that.
Q: Hi Gavin, I think you had a disagreement with the Nakamoto roadmap in Bitcoin design. Can you explain why? Thank you.24. HuoDongFaBu
A: I assume you mean the part where Satoshi says he doesn’t think a second implementation will ever be a good idea.
I just think Satoshi was wrong about that-- if you look at very successful protocols, they all have multiple compatible implementations. We understand a lot more about what it takes to be completely compatible and have much better tools to ensure compatibility. And the fact that there now are multiple compatible implementations working on the network (btcd being probably the best example) shows both that it is possible and that the other implementations are not a menace to the network.
Q: 1) For the dispute between Core and Classic, can we refer to the theory of “Common-pool resources” (Commons) in the Western cultural tradition to understand and grasp the public and neutral property of bitcoin so at to strive for a solution which can balance interests of all parties?25. zhuoji
A: 1) Maybe. The blockchain could be considered a Commons today-- a common, limited resource. But if control of the block size limit was given to miners, then I don’t think it fits the definition any more, because miners would have the freedom to restrict its use however they saw fit, on a block-by-block basis. That is just a simple, pure market, with transaction creators on one side and miners on the other.
Q: 2) For the application requring "bitcoin multi-signature script", can you recommend any programming language, libraries or tools?
A: 2) BitPay has some good tools: https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore I haven’t worked on any multisignature applications since writing the low-level protocol code-- there are probably other great libraries and tools that I just don’t know about.
Q: Hello Gavin, are you now still developing Classic? Will Classic proceed? Would you give up Classic and return to Core?26. jieke
A: Yes, yes, and there is no “return to” -- I plan on contributing to lots of projects.
Q: 1) If there are one million entrepreneurs who require fund and asset securitization via block chain technology, is it possible?27. IMJENNIM
A: 1) If there are ten million investors willing to fund those entrepreneurs, sure it is possible. The technology won’t be a problem, one million is not a large number for today’s computers.
Q: 2) Why can we trust Bitcoin and what are the advantages of bitcoin in online payment and settlement? Its commission fee now is not as cheap as before, besides, the time for one confirm is not fast enough. Your opinions on pros and cons of Mining and PoW?
A: 2) For people in places with good-enough banking systems like the United States or China, purchasing things inside their own country, bitcoin does not have much of an advantage over existing payment systems. But if you are buying something from somebody in another country, or you live in a place where there are no good payment systems, Bitcoin works very well.
Proof of work and mining is the most fair, decentralized way to distribute new coins. They are also the best way of securing the network that we know of so far. Perhaps in 30 years when essentially all of the new coins have been mined and computer scientists have thoroughly studied other ways of securing the network it might make sense for Bitcoin to start to switch to something other than mining and proof-of-work to secure the network.
Q: 3) How likely the possibility of replacing the existing legal currency with virtual currency?
A: 3) Very unlikely in a large country. I can imagine a small country that uses a larger country’s currency deciding to switch to a crypto currency, though.
Q: 1) You have always insist on larger block. Some people share the same view, they just want to increase the block size, regardless of network bandwidth restrictions in China and other developing countries. How do you see this criticism?28.ShaSiKaEr
A: 1) Most people are using Bitcoin over very limited bandwidth connections-- most people use lightweight wallets.
If you run a business that needs a fast connection to the Internet, then it is not expensive to rent a server in a data center that has very good bandwidth. Even inexpensive servers have plenty of bandwidth and CPU power to keep up with much higher transaction volume.
If you insist on running a full node from your home, average connection speed in China today is 3.7 megabits per second, which is almost 1,000 transactions per second. Latency through the Great Firewall is a bigger issue right now, but there are several software solutions to that problem that people (including myself) are working on right now.
Q: 2) In addition, I'm curious what is your opinion on the current Bitcoin Core team? There is no doubt? If so, why not act as a Core developer contributing code in Bitcoin Core to solve these problems?
A: 2) I like most of the people on the current Bitcoin Core team, they are great. But there are a couple of people on that team I don’t want to work with, so I have decided to limit the amount of time I spend with that project.
Q: 1) Hello Gavin, I would like to ask you how long since your last contribution in Bitcoin Core or others related? Expect the big influence as one of the earliest contributors, do not you think you ought to talk about the code, mostly for the coutribution of development of Bitcoin?29.Xseraph2
A from pangcong: 1)The last commit in bitcoin core made by Gavin is on September 30, 2015, after that Gavin was busy with bitcoin XT and bicoin classic. His actual development in bitcoin has never stopped, these records are very clear on github, if you want to ask questions which are obvious, please investigate first.
A from Gavin: 1) Also: I submitted some patches to Bitcoin Core a few days ago.
Q: 2) Also, you were a neutral software engineer before, seriously committed to improving the bitcoin. But now you're playing political means to enhance your impact on the future of Bitcoin, how do you respond with it?
A from KuHaiBian: 2) Now the biggest problem in Bitcoin is not block size limit, but that there is only one development team, it is as dangerous as the situation that there is only one mining pool mining bitcoin. This is the biggest problem Gavin is trying to solve.
A from Gavin: 2) I just give my honest opinion, and try to do what I can to make Bitcoin more successful.
Q: There is no systematic process for Bitcoin upgrades. Is there any regulation/restriction on the power of Core devs? How do we balance the conflict between the centrilized power of the devs with interest of the community consensus? Do you think Bitcoin need to learn from R3 chains or distributed ledger systems? I.e. setting up regulations to constrain the power of the devs, so that only devs with “restricted access” can contribute, not everyone.30. ZhongBenCong
A: Competition is the best solution. If the Core team does not make their customers happy, then they will be replaced. It might take a year or more for another team to get the reputation for high-quality code that the Core team has acquired over the years.
Q: In 2016, you propose to increase block size limit to 8M, then doubled every two years. Is it still the most promising expansion plan in your opinion now? If it is, do you think it possible that the block size reach 8GB in 2036, particularly given the network speed and bandwith in developing countries.31. FengFengZhongXuYaoNi
A: I think it would be best to eliminate the block size limit entirely, and let the miners decide if they should accept or reject blocks. The miners want Bitcoin to succeed, and will not choose a size so large the network cannot handle it.
I don’t know if people would agree to eliminate the limit, though. A dynamic limit that grows, but prevents an extremely large ‘attack block’ would also be a good solution.
The growing-8MB idea came from the idea that it should be possible for somebody on a home Internet connection to continue to validate every single transaction. However, more research showed that the bottleneck is not the connection from the Internet to our homes (even in China there is plenty of bandwidth there) but connections across international borders. In particular, the Great Firewall can sometimes greatly restrict bandwidth to and from China.
Q: Gavin, hello! What is the reason do you think the community rejected Bitcoin XT?32. ShaSiBiEr
A: It was a mistake to try to make more changes than just simply increasing the block size limit.
Q: Now the problem of block size limit is not so serious as before when Bitoin was attacked, and the Segwit has been deployed, so what is the controversy? Why have to argue to the bitter end, must we argue until bitcoin die? Gavin, we all know your contribution to Bitcoin. But in 2015, when you said in bitcoin software development, we need a "dictator" to resolve the dispute. I think you want to be this dictator. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008810.html33. HuoDongFaBu
A: Must we argue until bitcoin die: I think is is in the nature of people to argue, so I think we will be arguing about lots of things until either we die or Bitcoin dies. I think in a few years we will look back and wonder why there was so much arguing, but I also think some good things have come from all of the argument.
Q: 1) What do you think about Ethereum? Can smart contract run based on Bitcoin?
A: 1) (This question is repeated. Please see Q18-4)
Q: 2) What are the problems Miners may have to face after halving in July? Thanks!
A: 2) There is a small risk that the halving will make a good fraction of the miners stop mining, because they will get about half of the bitcoins they got before the halving. And that might mean blocks take longer to create, which means less space for transactions, which might mean people get frustrated and leave Bitcoin. Which could drop the price even more, causing more miners to stop mining, more frustration, and so on.
Miners tell me they have already planned ahead for the halving and this will not happen, which is why I think it is a small risk and I don’t think the halving will be a big problem for most miners.
Q: 3) Where can we get the whole code and code review of bitcoin?
Bitcoin Core is at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
Bitcoin Classic: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic
Many people think Bitcoin’s distribution wasn’t fair, or that Satoshi “stealth mined.” Below I dive into early mining, inequality, distribution, and ethics.
For a deeper dive, my Medium post: https://medium.com/@danhedl/bitcoins-distribution-was-fair-e2ef7bbbc892 …
TL;DR - check out this thread 👇
Satoshi didn’t premine. Satoshi gave everyone a 2 month heads up before mining the Genesis block, reaching out to the only other people who would possibly be interested in experimenting with a sovereign digital currency at the time, the cypherpunks.
The whitepaper was published on October 31, 2008, then Bitcoin 0.1 software was released on January 9, 2009. The genesis block (the only block specially minted earlier) has a timestamp of 18:15:05 GMT on January 3, 2009.
Satoshi included a message in the Genesis Block as a “proof of no premine.” “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”
Before Satoshi’s invention, the concept of pre-mining didn’t exist. To be this prescient demonstrated incredible maturity.
Anybody else could have mined by downloading the software (had a 1-click miner). The code to mine bitcoin was available on the day Satoshi began mining. Satoshi definitely wasn’t mining alone - we know for a fact that Hal Finney was mining one day after the initial launch.
Satoshi mined because the network required a miner, he turned them off when there was a stable network that didn’t need his mining power. He reduced his % of the hashrate in a slow and steady manner. This implied Satoshi had a hashrate plan.
How much did Satoshi mine? Other than 50 coins, it’s not empirically knowable how many he owned, but we can assign a high probability that he was the miner who minted close to ~700,000.
BitMEX reviewed the original estimate made by Sergio Demian Lerner where he discovered that Satoshi’s miner “fingerprint,” and concluded that there is reasonable evidence that a single dominant miner in 2009 could have generated around 700,000 bitcoin
Bitcoin’s market cap was ~$0 for nearly a year and a half. Miners were wasting money on hardware and electricity to mine, with no guarantee that the Bitcoins they received would ever have value.
“Faucets” were set up to freely distribute Bitcoins in order to “seed” adoption. The first recorded exchange of Bitcoin for “real world” value occurred on May 22, 2010, where Laszlo Hanyecz agreed to pay 10,000 Bitcoins for two delivered Papa John’s pizzas.
“It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.” — Satoshi Nakamoto
The early pioneers were the ones crazy enough to take the financial, temporal and social risks to participate in the Bitcoin project, keeping it alive and acting as arbiters of the system in its early days. Nearly all lost or sold all of their Bitcoins
With each of those boom/bust cycles we’ve seen Bitcoin redistributed from old hodlers to new hodlers via selling, decreasing the Gini Coefficient. In 2017 alone, we saw 15% of all BTC move out of old hodler hands
The theoretical total number of bitcoins, slightly less than 21M, should not be confused with the total spendable supply. The total spendable supply is always lower than the total supply, and is subject to accidental loss, willful destruction, and technical peculiarities
"Ten years ago cryptographers and HCI experts created the ultimate experiment to see how well human beings could hold onto long-lived secret keys...the results of that experiment have not been pretty." - Some Cryptographer on Twitter
There are many stories of people losing BTC in large amounts — especially in the early days — when BTC wasn’t worth much and was easily forgotten on an old hard-drive, USB memory stick, even a scrap of paper.
Coins which remain unspent for >5 years have a high likelihood to be lost forever. Despite the richness of blockchain data, it’s extremely difficult to measure how much cryptocurrency is truly lost, as lost coins leave no trace in the blockchain.
“The study of lost bitcoin is geology masquerading as data science.” — @dhruvbansal Unchained Capital did a great analysis of lost coins and estimate: 2.78–3.79M BTC lost which aligns with another more sophisticated analysis done by Chainalysis
“Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.” — Satoshi Nakamoto
From private key management mistakes, to scams and exchange hacks, to resisting selling temptation, early HODLers SURVIVED. In compensation for that risk, they absolutely deserve the value appreciation.
Some argue Bitcoin’s distribution is analogous to a Ponzi scheme, but it’s nothing like one: it was transparent, offered no return, and has immense utility.
“Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. More like a collectible or commodity.” — Satoshi Nakamoto
Satoshi was a person like any other, not some infallible being. This was the fairest distribution he could have come up with. It’s intellectually dishonest to compare Satoshi’s early mining of Bitcoin at a loss, with premining of an ICO with a positive market value.
"Bitcoin benefited from a very rare set of circumstances. Because it launched in a world where digital cash had no established value, they circulated freely. That can’t be recaptured today since everyone expects coins to have value. The immaculate conception"
Other than sending a few worthless coins in test transactions, Satoshi never cashed out.
Keeping a firm track on the overall total of your existing unspent outputs is a role better served by full Bitcoin nodes. This specific node can serve to validate all of the transactions and various blocks that it received. One of the snags is that the node will only validate these transactions after ensuring that these same blocks and transactions adhere to the consensus rules of the network ... “How many unspent bitcoins exist?” “How many bitcoins have been lost?” “How many bitcoins are left sitting in wallets, and how does this affect price?” If 2 days 98% of Unspent Bitcoin Transaction Outputs Currently in a State of Profit CryptoGlobe )8% of Bitcoin’s unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) are currently in a state of profit, a level that hasn’t been seen since December 2017, when the price of bitcoin hit its all-time high close to $20,000. Unspent is simple enough for newcomers, and powerful enough for serious investors. Create an account, connect your exchanges and wallets, and let Unspent crunch numbers and handle the rest. Your portfolio will always be up to date, with helpful insights about your assets, trades, risk profile, market analysis, activity on open finance services, and more. As for Bitcoin, as of 11:18 UT on September 22, BTC-USD is trading around $10,472, down 1.5% in the past 24-hour period. Source: CryptoCompare As for rest of the other cryptoassets, to give you a rough idea of how things are going right now, 15 out of the top 20 cryptoassets by market cap are currently in the red (i.e. down against USD).
[index]          
UTXO's are transactions that have been sent to a user, which are themselves, unspent by that user. UTXO's are checks, written to a destination, that are them... Join the Cryptoversal world at http://www.cryptoversal.com What does unspent mean on Blockchain? How are unspent transactions processed? What to do with an u... Evolution of Bitcoins Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) over time. You can see the full history of all bitcoin transactions, compressed into a 5 minute video. Best viewed in 4K at a dark place so ... TO GET ANY INFORMATION ABOUT SOFTWARE ONLY TEXT ME ON Gmail;[email protected] software download link ; https://www.sendspace.com/file/c4om2w login;admin pas... 💾 DOWNLOAD LINK: https://bit.ly/3kfU8jQ =====Don't forget===== LIKE COMMENT SHARE SUBSCRIBE 👍 Smash the “Like”...