Talk:Mt. Gox - Bitcoin Wiki

Bitcoin RO

Bitcoin in Romania
[link]

Brasil Bitcoin

**BRASIL BITCOIN** Notícias, perguntas, descubra, denuncie. Tudo sobre **Bitcoin** aqui e no mundo. Bitcoin é a moeda da Internet: um dinheiro descentralizado e com alcance mundial. Diferente das moedas tradicionais como o dólar, os bitcoins são emitidos e gerenciados sem qualquer autoridade central que seja: não existe governo, empresa ou banco no comando do Bitcoin. Dessa forma ele é mais resistente a inflações selvagens e bancos corruptos. Com o Bitcoin, você pode ser seu próprio banco.
[link]

#Bitcoin Brief w/ @jimmysong from @advbitcoin #AdvancingBitcoin in #London to talk @brockpierce revising #MtGox,… https://t.co/55RkywBDM4 - Crypto Dynamic Info - Whales's

Posted at: February 8, 2019 at 06:06PM
By:
#Bitcoin Brief w/ @jimmysong from @advbitcoin #AdvancingBitcoin in #London to talk @brockpierce revising #MtGox,… https://t.co/55RkywBDM4
Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : http://bit.ly/2GynF9t
Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
submitted by cryptotradingbot to cryptobots [link] [comments]

Whatever happened to the NeoBee scammer? What ever happened to Cryptsy scam? Why nobody talking about BTC-e / Wex being offline for months? Lets not make it easy for these frauds, reminders are necessary, MtGox was not the only disaster! /r/Bitcoin

Whatever happened to the NeoBee scammer? What ever happened to Cryptsy scam? Why nobody talking about BTC-e / Wex being offline for months? Lets not make it easy for these frauds, reminders are necessary, MtGox was not the only disaster! /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Whatever happened to the NeoBee scammer? What ever happened to Cryptsy scam? Why nobody talking about BTC-e / Wex being offline for months? Lets not make it easy for these frauds, reminders are necessary, MtGox was not the only disaster! /r/Bitcoin

Whatever happened to the NeoBee scammer? What ever happened to Cryptsy scam? Why nobody talking about BTC-e / Wex being offline for months? Lets not make it easy for these frauds, reminders are necessary, MtGox was not the only disaster! /Bitcoin submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

The Daily Show talks about bitcoin and MtGox

The Daily Show talks about bitcoin and MtGox submitted by Dared00 to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

The conversation with John Betts in #mtgox-talk 08:19:48 [x-post /r/bitcoin]

The conversation with John Betts in #mtgox-talk 08:19:48 [x-post /bitcoin] submitted by Redditcoin to mtgoxinsolvency [link] [comments]

I submitted an order through bitinstant for $400 when bitcoin was still only $20 a coin. Never received, Bitinstant said to talk to MtGox, Mtgox says to talk to Bitinstant. Is there actually anything I can do at this point?

submitted by caban3 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Let's talk bitcoin E85 - MTGox and Malleability

Let's talk bitcoin E85 - MTGox and Malleability submitted by TheCryptoSceptic to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

MTGox Hacked, Warren Buffet Trash Talking Bitcoin, Yet Bitcoin's Price up $50. WTF?

submitted by skilliard4 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Almost a year ago, CEO of MTGOX talks about how you could buy bitcoin and it would be worth $0 the day after

Almost a year ago, CEO of MTGOX talks about how you could buy bitcoin and it would be worth $0 the day after submitted by came_on_my_own_face to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bring up the Target Credit Card fiasco when talking about MtGox & Bitcoin

It's an easy way for folks to understand that it's not Bitcoin, but a company that handles Bitcoin.
submitted by superphly to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

June 3d Let's talk bitcoin: Mtgox hypothesis @21': price sent up with fake buys, exchange gets in trouble when ppl withdraw fiat at inflated rates with no fiat available.

June 3d Let's talk bitcoin: Mtgox hypothesis @21': price sent up with fake buys, exchange gets in trouble when ppl withdraw fiat at inflated rates with no fiat available. submitted by cryptopascal to mtgoxinsolvency [link] [comments]

Andreas discusses MtGox issues on "E85 - MTGox and Malleability by Let's Talk Bitcoin! on SoundCloud"

Andreas discusses MtGox issues on submitted by mjkeating to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Let's talk bitcoin E85 - MTGox and Malleability

Let's talk bitcoin E85 - MTGox and Malleability submitted by TheCryptoSceptic to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2013 attendees, where there any talks about CoinLab and MtGox?

submitted by good_human to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Unique situation regarding a deceased relative and their bitcoin

Hi everyone,
Wondering if anybody here can provide any information (legal, technical, whatever) that may be helpful in our situation. I am a technical person (sys admin), but never got too involved in bitcoin and crypto currency. Believe it or not, I used to own several bitcoin back when mtgox was prevalent, and bitcoin was much much cheaper. I think I spent the 50 or so bitcoin I once owned on something from the silk road when I was 16... Talk about regret. so I understand encryption and technical topics, but not the specifics when it comes to bitcoin these days.
My fiance's brother (so my brother-in-law) just recently passed away unexpectedly. He used to talk frequently about the amount of bit-coin he had, but nobody really knew for sure if he was telling the truth. Anyways, the family is interested in trying to recover the bitcoin.
First of all, legally- what happens to crypto currency in this type of situation? I'd assume it goes to whoever the rest of his estate went to- but if that person doesn't know how to access his bitcoin wallet, what then? They're just out of luck and the crypto currency is lost? I'm guessing that bitcoin is non-recoverable, just by design. Is this correct?
So the family has his laptop, and access to his user account, and they're asking me to do what I can to try to recover the lost coin. I have a PGP key- which tells me he encrypted his private keys, which I'm guessing would make this even more difficult.
My first instinct would be to attempt to get into his email- to determine where his wallet was "hosted" (e.g. coinbase, etc.), and if I can find that much out, I would hope it would be as simple as clicking a "forgot password" link and following the steps.
So I'm hoping somebody might be able to fill me in on something I may not be aware of when it comes to bitcoin. I know my brother in law was very paranoid when it came to security, and this task might be impossible- but I wanted to ask and see what anybody might be able to add here.
Thanks for reading
submitted by t4keheart to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Introducing The Cryptocurrency Informer

Hey all,
We are trying something new. Full disclosure, I work for BitcoinTaxes, and I am the host of the new podcast I am here to talk about.
News happens in the world of cryptocurrency at a rapid pace. Every day something new and innovative is announced, that expands on existing technologies. The Cryptocurrency Informer is a weekly update series highlighting notable events happening in the crypto and crypto-adjacent spaces. Each episode provides a brief summary of these events, and an accompanying blog post provides sources for each story, so our listeners can dig deep on the things they want to know more about.
In the first episode of The Cryptocurrency Informer, we discuss the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on tax deadlines and federally backed cryptocurrencies. Binance has released it’s new “Binance Card”, and Mt.Gox creditors may be getting closer to a payout.
Podcast Links:
Podcast Page
Direct Episode Link
Info Links:

IRS Moves Tax Deadline To July 15th

Notice 2020-18 – Relief for Taxpayers Affected by Ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic
Filing and Payment Deadlines Questions and Answers

“Digital Dollar” and “Digital Dollar Wallet” Mentioned In Stimulus

Stimulus Draft
Forbes – Central Bank Currency on Ethereum
Technology Review – FedAccounts

Chinese Central Bank Digital Currency

Global Times Report

Binance Releases The Binance Card (Beta)

Binance Blog
Binance Card Registration Page

Mt. Gox Draft Rehabilitation Plan Released

*Creditor Portal Login (View Documents)
Coindesk Report
* Please use your best judgement when providing login information. The Creditor Portal Login link was provided via update on Mt. Gox's page. A PDF of this annoncement can be found here.
---
Hopefully you guys enjoy this kind of content. We'll still be releasing normal episodes of The BitcoinTaxes Podcast soon, but this will be an additional series that we release now as well.
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to bitcointaxes [link] [comments]

Technical: A Brief History of Payment Channels: from Satoshi to Lightning Network

Who cares about political tweets from some random country's president when payment channels are a much more interesting and are actually capable of carrying value?
So let's have a short history of various payment channel techs!

Generation 0: Satoshi's Broken nSequence Channels

Because Satoshi's Vision included payment channels, except his implementation sucked so hard we had to go fix it and added RBF as a by-product.
Originally, the plan for nSequence was that mempools would replace any transaction spending certain inputs with another transaction spending the same inputs, but only if the nSequence field of the replacement was larger.
Since 0xFFFFFFFF was the highest value that nSequence could get, this would mark a transaction as "final" and not replaceable on the mempool anymore.
In fact, this "nSequence channel" I will describe is the reason why we have this weird rule about nLockTime and nSequence. nLockTime actually only works if nSequence is not 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. final. If nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF then nLockTime is ignored, because this if the "final" version of the transaction.
So what you'd do would be something like this:
  1. You go to a bar and promise the bartender to pay by the time the bar closes. Because this is the Bitcoin universe, time is measured in blockheight, so the closing time of the bar is indicated as some future blockheight.
  2. For your first drink, you'd make a transaction paying to the bartender for that drink, paying from some coins you have. The transaction has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, and a starting nSequence of 0. You hand over the transaction and the bartender hands you your drink.
  3. For your succeeding drink, you'd remake the same transaction, adding the payment for that drink to the transaction output that goes to the bartender (so that output keeps getting larger, by the amount of payment), and having an nSequence that is one higher than the previous one.
  4. Eventually you have to stop drinking. It comes down to one of two possibilities:
    • You drink until the bar closes. Since it is now the nLockTime indicated in the transaction, the bartender is able to broadcast the latest transaction and tells the bouncers to kick you out of the bar.
    • You wisely consider the state of your liver. So you re-sign the last transaction with a "final" nSequence of 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. the maximum possible value it can have. This allows the bartender to get his or her funds immediately (nLockTime is ignored if nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF), so he or she tells the bouncers to let you out of the bar.
Now that of course is a payment channel. Individual payments (purchases of alcohol, so I guess buying coffee is not in scope for payment channels). Closing is done by creating a "final" transaction that is the sum of the individual payments. Sure there's no routing and channels are unidirectional and channels have a maximum lifetime but give Satoshi a break, he was also busy inventing Bitcoin at the time.
Now if you noticed I called this kind of payment channel "broken". This is because the mempool rules are not consensus rules, and cannot be validated (nothing about the mempool can be validated onchain: I sigh every time somebody proposes "let's make block size dependent on mempool size", mempool state cannot be validated by onchain data). Fullnodes can't see all of the transactions you signed, and then validate that the final one with the maximum nSequence is the one that actually is used onchain. So you can do the below:
  1. Become friends with Jihan Wu, because he owns >51% of the mining hashrate (he totally reorged Bitcoin to reverse the Binance hack right?).
  2. Slip Jihan Wu some of the more interesting drinks you're ordering as an incentive to cooperate with you. So say you end up ordering 100 drinks, you split it with Jihan Wu and give him 50 of the drinks.
  3. When the bar closes, Jihan Wu quickly calls his mining rig and tells them to mine the version of your transaction with nSequence 0. You know, that first one where you pay for only one drink.
  4. Because fullnodes cannot validate nSequence, they'll accept even the nSequence=0 version and confirm it, immutably adding you paying for a single alcoholic drink to the blockchain.
  5. The bartender, pissed at being cheated, takes out a shotgun from under the bar and shoots at you and Jihan Wu.
  6. Jihan Wu uses his mystical chi powers (actually the combined exhaust from all of his mining rigs) to slow down the shotgun pellets, making them hit you as softly as petals drifting in the wind.
  7. The bartender mutters some words, clothes ripping apart as he or she (hard to believe it could be a she but hey) turns into a bear, ready to maul you for cheating him or her of the payment for all the 100 drinks you ordered from him or her.
  8. Steely-eyed, you stand in front of the bartender-turned-bear, daring him to touch you. You've watched Revenant, you know Leonardo di Caprio could survive a bear mauling, and if some posh actor can survive that, you know you can too. You make a pose. "Drunken troll logic attack!"
  9. I think I got sidetracked here.
Lessons learned?

Spilman Channels

Incentive-compatible time-limited unidirectional channel; or, Satoshi's Vision, Fixed (if transaction malleability hadn't been a problem, that is).
Now, we know the bartender will turn into a bear and maul you if you try to cheat the payment channel, and now that we've revealed you're good friends with Jihan Wu, the bartender will no longer accept a payment channel scheme that lets one you cooperate with a miner to cheat the bartender.
Fortunately, Jeremy Spilman proposed a better way that would not let you cheat the bartender.
First, you and the bartender perform this ritual:
  1. You get some funds and create a transaction that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig between you and the bartender. You don't broadcast this yet: you just sign it and get its txid.
  2. You create another transaction that spends the above transaction. This transaction (the "backoff") has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, plus one block. You sign it and give this backoff transaction (but not the above transaction) to the bartender.
  3. The bartender signs the backoff and gives it back to you. It is now valid since it's spending a 2-of-2 of you and the bartender, and both of you have signed the backoff transaction.
  4. Now you broadcast the first transaction onchain. You and the bartender wait for it to be deeply confirmed, then you can start ordering.
The above is probably vaguely familiar to LN users. It's the funding process of payment channels! The first transaction, the one that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig, is the funding transaction that backs the payment channel funds.
So now you start ordering in this way:
  1. For your first drink, you create a transaction spending the funding transaction output and sending the price of the drink to the bartender, with the rest returning to you.
  2. You sign the transaction and pass it to the bartender, who serves your first drink.
  3. For your succeeding drinks, you recreate the same transaction, adding the price of the new drink to the sum that goes to the bartender and reducing the money returned to you. You sign the transaction and give it to the bartender, who serves you your next drink.
  4. At the end:
    • If the bar closing time is reached, the bartender signs the latest transaction, completing the needed 2-of-2 signatures and broadcasting this to the Bitcoin network. Since the backoff transaction is the closing time + 1, it can't get used at closing time.
    • If you decide you want to leave early because your liver is crying, you just tell the bartender to go ahead and close the channel (which the bartender can do at any time by just signing and broadcasting the latest transaction: the bartender won't do that because he or she is hoping you'll stay and drink more).
    • If you ended up just hanging around the bar and never ordering, then at closing time + 1 you broadcast the backoff transaction and get your funds back in full.
Now, even if you pass 50 drinks to Jihan Wu, you can't give him the first transaction (the one which pays for only one drink) and ask him to mine it: it's spending a 2-of-2 and the copy you have only contains your own signature. You need the bartender's signature to make it valid, but he or she sure as hell isn't going to cooperate in something that would lose him or her money, so a signature from the bartender validating old state where he or she gets paid less isn't going to happen.
So, problem solved, right? Right? Okay, let's try it. So you get your funds, put them in a funding tx, get the backoff tx, confirm the funding tx...
Once the funding transaction confirms deeply, the bartender laughs uproariously. He or she summons the bouncers, who surround you menacingly.
"I'm refusing service to you," the bartender says.
"Fine," you say. "I was leaving anyway;" You smirk. "I'll get back my money with the backoff transaction, and posting about your poor service on reddit so you get negative karma, so there!"
"Not so fast," the bartender says. His or her voice chills your bones. It looks like your exploitation of the Satoshi nSequence payment channel is still fresh in his or her mind. "Look at the txid of the funding transaction that got confirmed."
"What about it?" you ask nonchalantly, as you flip open your desktop computer and open a reputable blockchain explorer.
What you see shocks you.
"What the --- the txid is different! You--- you changed my signature?? But how? I put the only copy of my private key in a sealed envelope in a cast-iron box inside a safe buried in the Gobi desert protected by a clan of nomads who have dedicated their lives and their childrens' lives to keeping my private key safe in perpetuity!"
"Didn't you know?" the bartender asks. "The components of the signature are just very large numbers. The sign of one of the signature components can be changed, from positive to negative, or negative to positive, and the signature will remain valid. Anyone can do that, even if they don't know the private key. But because Bitcoin includes the signatures in the transaction when it's generating the txid, this little change also changes the txid." He or she chuckles. "They say they'll fix it by separating the signatures from the transaction body. They're saying that these kinds of signature malleability won't affect transaction ids anymore after they do this, but I bet I can get my good friend Jihan Wu to delay this 'SepSig' plan for a good while yet. Friendly guy, this Jihan Wu, it turns out all I had to do was slip him 51 drinks and he was willing to mine a tx with the signature signs flipped." His or her grin widens. "I'm afraid your backoff transaction won't work anymore, since it spends a txid that is not existent and will never be confirmed. So here's the deal. You pay me 99% of the funds in the funding transaction, in exchange for me signing the transaction that spends with the txid that you see onchain. Refuse, and you lose 100% of the funds and every other HODLer, including me, benefits from the reduction in coin supply. Accept, and you get to keep 1%. I lose nothing if you refuse, so I won't care if you do, but consider the difference of getting zilch vs. getting 1% of your funds." His or her eyes glow. "GENUFLECT RIGHT NOW."
Lesson learned?

CLTV-protected Spilman Channels

Using CLTV for the backoff branch.
This variation is simply Spilman channels, but with the backoff transaction replaced with a backoff branch in the SCRIPT you pay to. It only became possible after OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) was enabled in 2015.
Now as we saw in the Spilman Channels discussion, transaction malleability means that any pre-signed offchain transaction can easily be invalidated by flipping the sign of the signature of the funding transaction while the funding transaction is not yet confirmed.
This can be avoided by simply putting any special requirements into an explicit branch of the Bitcoin SCRIPT. Now, the backoff branch is supposed to create a maximum lifetime for the payment channel, and prior to the introduction of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY this could only be done by having a pre-signed nLockTime transaction.
With CLTV, however, we can now make the branches explicit in the SCRIPT that the funding transaction pays to.
Instead of paying to a 2-of-2 in order to set up the funding transaction, you pay to a SCRIPT which is basically "2-of-2, OR this singlesig after a specified lock time".
With this, there is no backoff transaction that is pre-signed and which refers to a specific txid. Instead, you can create the backoff transaction later, using whatever txid the funding transaction ends up being confirmed under. Since the funding transaction is immutable once confirmed, it is no longer possible to change the txid afterwards.

Todd Micropayment Networks

The old hub-spoke model (that isn't how LN today actually works).
One of the more direct predecessors of the Lightning Network was the hub-spoke model discussed by Peter Todd. In this model, instead of payers directly having channels to payees, payers and payees connect to a central hub server. This allows any payer to pay any payee, using the same channel for every payee on the hub. Similarly, this allows any payee to receive from any payer, using the same channel.
Remember from the above Spilman example? When you open a channel to the bartender, you have to wait around for the funding tx to confirm. This will take an hour at best. Now consider that you have to make channels for everyone you want to pay to. That's not very scalable.
So the Todd hub-spoke model has a central "clearing house" that transport money from payers to payees. The "Moonbeam" project takes this model. Of course, this reveals to the hub who the payer and payee are, and thus the hub can potentially censor transactions. Generally, though, it was considered that a hub would more efficiently censor by just not maintaining a channel with the payer or payee that it wants to censor (since the money it owned in the channel would just be locked uselessly if the hub won't process payments to/from the censored user).
In any case, the ability of the central hub to monitor payments means that it can surveill the payer and payee, and then sell this private transactional data to third parties. This loss of privacy would be intolerable today.
Peter Todd also proposed that there might be multiple hubs that could transport funds to each other on behalf of their users, providing somewhat better privacy.
Another point of note is that at the time such networks were proposed, only unidirectional (Spilman) channels were available. Thus, while one could be a payer, or payee, you would have to use separate channels for your income versus for your spending. Worse, if you wanted to transfer money from your income channel to your spending channel, you had to close both and reshuffle the money between them, both onchain activities.

Poon-Dryja Lightning Network

Bidirectional two-participant channels.
The Poon-Dryja channel mechanism has two important properties:
Both the original Satoshi and the two Spilman variants are unidirectional: there is a payer and a payee, and if the payee wants to do a refund, or wants to pay for a different service or product the payer is providing, then they can't use the same unidirectional channel.
The Poon-Dryjam mechanism allows channels, however, to be bidirectional instead: you are not a payer or a payee on the channel, you can receive or send at any time as long as both you and the channel counterparty are online.
Further, unlike either of the Spilman variants, there is no time limit for the lifetime of a channel. Instead, you can keep the channel open for as long as you want.
Both properties, together, form a very powerful scaling property that I believe most people have not appreciated. With unidirectional channels, as mentioned before, if you both earn and spend over the same network of payment channels, you would have separate channels for earning and spending. You would then need to perform onchain operations to "reverse" the directions of your channels periodically. Secondly, since Spilman channels have a fixed lifetime, even if you never used either channel, you would have to periodically "refresh" it by closing it and reopening.
With bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels, you may instead open some channels when you first begin managing your own money, then close them only after your lawyers have executed your last will and testament on how the money in your channels get divided up to your heirs: that's just two onchain transactions in your entire lifetime. That is the potentially very powerful scaling property that bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels allow.
I won't discuss the transaction structure needed for Poon-Dryja bidirectional channels --- it's complicated and you can easily get explanations with cute graphics elsewhere.
There is a weakness of Poon-Dryja that people tend to gloss over (because it was fixed very well by RustyReddit):
Another thing I want to emphasize is that while the Lightning Network paper and many of the earlier presentations developed from the old Peter Todd hub-and-spoke model, the modern Lightning Network takes the logical conclusion of removing a strict separation between "hubs" and "spokes". Any node on the Lightning Network can very well work as a hub for any other node. Thus, while you might operate as "mostly a payer", "mostly a forwarding node", "mostly a payee", you still end up being at least partially a forwarding node ("hub") on the network, at least part of the time. This greatly reduces the problems of privacy inherent in having only a few hub nodes: forwarding nodes cannot get significantly useful data from the payments passing through them, because the distance between the payer and the payee can be so large that it would be likely that the ultimate payer and the ultimate payee could be anyone on the Lightning Network.
Lessons learned?

Future

After LN, there's also the Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC). This post is long enough as-is, LOL. But for now, it uses a novel "decrementing nSequence channel", using the new relative-timelock semantics of nSequence (not the broken one originally by Satoshi). It actually uses multiple such "decrementing nSequence" constructs, terminating in a pair of Spilman channels, one in both directions (thus "duplex"). Maybe I'll discuss it some other time.
The realization that channel constructions could actually hold more channel constructions inside them (the way the Decker-Wattenhofer puts a pair of Spilman channels inside a series of "decrementing nSequence channels") lead to the further thought behind Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer channel factories. Basically, you could host multiple two-participant channel constructs inside a larger multiparticipant "channel" construct (i.e. host multiple channels inside a factory).
Further, we have the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun or "eltoo" construction. I'd argue that this is "nSequence done right". I'll write more about this later, because this post is long enough.
Lessons learned?
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Sejarah Asal Usul Bitcoin 2010

https://amsadad.com/analysbitcoin/sejarah-asal-usul-bitcoin-dan-perjalanan-bitcoin/

Bitcoin Diposting di Slashdot – 11 Juli 2010

Rilis Bitcoin versi 0.3 ditampilkan di slashdot.org, situs web berita dan teknologi populer. Mencapai sejumlah besar peminat teknologi, artikel ini membawa banyak orang yang baru tertarik, mendorong nilai tukar bitcoin tunggal naik hampir sepuluh kali lipat, dari sekitar $ 0,008 menjadi $ 0,08 hanya dalam lima hari. Sumber Bukti Terkait Slashdot Post Bitcoin Rilis V 0.3

Mt. Gox Membuka pertukaran burasa crypto pada tanggal 18 Juli 2010

Nilai Harga Bitcoin $ 0,07 selang beberapa hari kemudia kira-kira 10 hari harga bitcoin menjadi $ 0,06 Jed McCaleb seorang programmer yang terkenal karena menciptakan jaringan peer-to-peer eDonkey yang sukses pada tahun 2000, mengumumkan peluncuran Mt. Gox pertukaran bitcoin full time transaksi.
Berdasarkan sebelumnya, proyek McCaleb yang ditinggalkan untuk membuat pertukaran online untuk Magic: The Gathering cards, ia segera berjuang untuk mengikuti tuntutan bisnis dan menjual mtgox.com ke Mark Karpeles pada tanggal 06 Maret 2011. Mt. Gox perlahan-lahan akan tumbuh untuk mendominasi dunia perdagangan bitcoin selama tiga tahun ke depan. Bukti Terkait Pengumuman Exchange Mt.Gox

Hard Fork Bitcoin Pertama 15 agustus 2010

Hardfork Pertama kali bitcoin karena kasus bug pada tanggal 15 agustus 2010 nilai harga Bitcoin $ 0,07 Dengan menggunakan cara khas khusus komputer memproses angka, orang tak dikenal membuat transaksi penipuan yang menghasilkan 184.467.440.737.08554078 bitcoin – hampir sembilan ribu kali lebih banyak dari jumlah yang dapat secara sah ada di seluruh sistem.
Keanehan dengan cepat terlihat oleh pengembang Bitcoin dan anggota komunitas, dan versi tetap dari perangkat lunak Bitcoin dirilis dalam beberapa jam. Pada hari berikutnya, blockchain yang dikoreksi menyusul yang dieksploitasi, dan Bitcoin kembali beroperasi normal – tetapi tidak sebelum pasar terguncang dengan buruk. Sumber Bukti Terkait Thared BitcoinTalk dan Post sourceforge.net
submitted by amsadad to u/amsadad [link] [comments]

The Monetary Sovereignty War-cry: Proof of Keys - [Jan/3➞₿🔑∎]

TO All Soldiers for Monetary Sovereignty:
Every January 3rd the Bitcoin community participates in a Proof of Keys celebration by demanding and taking possession of all bitcoins and other cryptocurrency held by trusted third parties on their behalf. You can do this by withdrawing all Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency to wallets where you hold the private keys and perform network consensus for validation.
On 9 Dec 2018 Trace Mayer introduced the annual Proof of Keys celebration.
This cultural tradition enables you, the individual, to prove your monetary sovereignty and strengthen the Bitcoin network by using a full-node for an economically substantive transaction(s). Together, on this day, all of us get to celebrate our monetary independence from trusted third parties (which are security holes!). And we strengthen the decentralization of the Bitcoin network in the process!

This is a way for you to invest in yourself. There are a lot of people who want to keep you weak, dependent and enervated when it comes to your monetary sovereignty. You must take the personal responsibility and summon the desire to take action to declare your monetary independence and prove to yourself that you, and no-one else, hold the private keys to your own money.

There has been much discussion on Reddit, Twitter and Youtube for those who need help with how to do this safely and securely. And those who were trained this year can become teachers next year. Even though we may be ensconced in our cold storage; we must never forget the new user and leave them behind and stranded on the battlefield of control over their money.

Some helpful interviews about Proof of Keys include Crypt0 News, Crypto Cast Network, Let's Talk Bitcoin - With Andreas Antonopolous and What Bitcoin Did. Some helpful discussion includes storing bitcoins , Bitcoin's Security Model and Bitcoin Miners and Invalid Blocks.

Perhaps most important is how this tradition helps educate, teach and train new users of Bitcoin. The effect on yourself is much more important than that on third parties or the Bitcoin network.

Hopefully, everything will go smoothly and there will be no losses of funds, no shady behaviors or delays by exchanges or other third-parties and no significant Bitcoin network congestion. But even if there is, those are very minor costs to pay in the battle for monetary sovereignty.

And if you already keep your bitcoins safely in cold storage and still want to join the community and participate then consider skipping a meal and instead buying $20+ worth of bitcoins and moving them into cold storage. Take more scarce territory on the Bitcoin blockchain!

After all, having Proof of Keys is much better than 'Proof of Roger', MtGox, Silk Road), Bitfinex, Bitstamp, or some other possibly untrustworthy third party!

There have even been some articles about third parties halting withdrawals in preparation like HitBTC.
This video of Roger Ver was recorded on July 14, 2013 at the MTGOX headquarters. MtGox declared bankruptcy Feb 2014 announcing 850,000 bitcoins belonging to customers were missing.
In conclusion, this magic Internet money thing is about a lot more than just making money. The battle over our monetary sovereignty is now a personal fight by each of us. We have rallied around the banner of Bitcoin because (1) it is the soundest and hardest money that is strictly limited in amount that the world has ever known and (2) it is a censorship-resistant decentralized network. But to maintain those properties requires eternal vigilance and protection by those who yearn for those protections.

Thus, this battle over monetary sovereignty has only two possible outcomes: either (1) control of their own lives by the people themselves the world over or (2) control of the people and their lives by political and economic elitists.

So, fellow soldiers on the battlefield of monetary sovereignty, every January Third join me in a Proof of Keys!

Sincerely,
Trace Mayer

submitted by bitcoinknowledge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Near $1B are currently on the move from a Silkroad related wallet

Near $1B are currently on the move from a Silkroad related wallet
It seems that the owner of a huge #SilkRoad related wallet is moving funds actively since 3 days, dividing it in chunks of 100 coins by subwallets.
The original wallet owned 111,114.62 $BTC / $BCH , which is currently valuated ~ $844M (without taking in account other #Bitcoin forks).
Last movements on these subwallets are 4 years and 5 months old (March 9th, 2014).
The chunks have been divided over time to 60,000 coins then to 30,000 / 20,000 / 10,000 / 5,000 / 500 and now 100 coins.
#Bitcoin: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/address/1KyJr2L6CN5XhDfv9Sb5q3kjKwFCrRxTLy/transactions
#BitcoinCash: https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC/address/1KyJr2L6CN5XhDfv9Sb5q3kjKwFCrRxTLy/transactions
Does the owner intend selling it on the market soon?

Update 1
For those who asked, the original wallet (1933phfhK3ZgFQNLGSDXvqCn32k2buXY8a) seems to be related to a SilkRoad address per this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310600.0.
So it's most probably a wallet owned linked to DPR / SilkRoad. Note that this address is still active with 5 transactions executed in 2018 and 13 in 2017, with really small amount of BTC received/sent.
However, I ran some checks and it does not seem to be linked to the DPR seized coins wallet (1FfmbHfnpaZjKFvyi1okTjJJusN455paPH, there's only a 0.001 BTC link between the 2 addresses), so either the FBI did not sold them yet (last auction was in November 2015) or someone else (linked or not to SilkRoad) has access to it .
Finally, if it's not a SilkRoad related wallet the other options are, by descending probability order:
a) a MtGox cold wallet that has been seized or is still owned by MtGox: in fact the wallet funds moved in March 2014 right after MtGox filed for bankruptcy one month earlier in February 2014; these movements dates are really similar to the 200,000 lost coins "found" by Karpeles which moved March 7th, 2014 (1dda0f8827518ce4d1d824bf7600f75ec7e199774a090a947c58a65ab63552e3), just 2 days before the movements on the wallet we are talking about here.
b) a whale wallet since the major part of the 111,111 coins are coming from a very old deposit of 37,421 coins processed on June 21st, 2011 making this an early adopter's wallet (70d46f768b73e50440e41977eb13ab25826137a8d34486958c7d55c5931c6081)
...
z) CSW's wallet ... https://www.scribd.com/document/372445546/Bitcoin-Lawsuit, credits mishax1

Update 2
This amount of $1B in bitcoins that MtGox is going to return to customers looks pretty familiar, it could match the 111,114-coin wallets we are investigating here: https://btcmanager.com/mt-gox-preparing-return-1b-stolen-bitcoin-affected-users/.
But the methodology of transfer does not match in my opinion, it looks that the owner tries to hide the movements by mixing the coins.

Update 3
Investigating the $1B Bitcoins on the move from a SilkRoad related wallet: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/9bwsaf/investigating_the_1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_from_a/

Update 4
$1B Bitcoins On The Move: Owner Transfers ~$100M to Bitfinex And Binance In 10 Days
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/9ceb5v/1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_owner_transfers_100m_to/

Update 5
MtGox vs SilkRoad origin and September 6th BTC price impact is now discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9dvaj1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_mtgox_vs_silkroad_origin/

submitted by sick_silk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The bubble hasn't even begun.

The bubble hasn't even begun. submitted by FluxSeer to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I hate to be the one and saying this

but you need to wake up!
all those people asking whats going on.. well let me tell you. another cryptocurrency is coming very close to taking over.
I love BTC and I love what the devs have accomplished in the past, but the current state of Satoshi's legacy is a nightmare!
These are only the first tremors. More and more will follow as Number2 gets increased media attention and people buy in basically making a self fulfilling prophecy.
WAKE UP, BOYCOTT JIHAN VER, GET YOUR STUFF TOGETHER OR ROME WILL BURN
edit: im not even talking market cap. asic resistance, scalability, steady process.. I really do not want to sound like I am promoting something here, but shits getting real, open your eyes.
edit2: no, the problem is NOT core you paid peons! its the guy who vouched for mtgox, who openly admits that he rather have bitcoin burn (the list is long) and his asian sidekick with oedipus complex
edit3: visibility for this guy
submitted by l_-l to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Magic, MtGox, Bitcoin, a few notes that are not often made clear MTGox and Malleability - Let's Talk Bitcoin Episode 85 Mt. Gox Shuts Down - Bitcoins Over?  What's Trending Now MtGox Bitcoins to BTC e Bitcoins in 50 seconds - YouTube MtGox Bitcoins to BTC e Bitcoins in 50 seconds - YouTube

Mt. Gox, genannt "Mount Gox" oder einfach "Gox", war der am häufigsten verwendete Bitcoin-Devisenmarkt von kurz nach seiner Gründung im Jahr 2010 bis zu seiner Insolvenz Ende 2013.Der Markt wurde am 25. Februar 2014 geschlossen und hat Insolvenzschutz angemeldet in Japan und den Vereinigten Staaten nach dem Verlust von 640.000 Bitcoins. Mt. Gox, called "Mount Gox" or simply "Gox", was the most widely used bitcoin currency exchange market from shortly after its inception in 2010 to its insolvency late 2013. The market was closed February 25, 2014 and has since filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan and the United States, after losing 640 thousand bitcoins. Talk:Bitcoin by MtGox Mobile. From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. WikiProject Mt. Gox. This page is within the scope of WikiProject Mt. Gox, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mt. Gox on the Bitcoin Wiki. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Stub: This page is a stub. Low ... Bitcoin Discussion General discussion about the Bitcoin ecosystem that doesn't fit better elsewhere. News, the Bitcoin community, innovations, the general environment, etc. Discussion of specific Bitcoin-related services usually belongs in other sections. Subscribe to Let’s Talk Bitcoin! for free to automatically download new episodes. Shownotes for Let's Talk Bitcoin Episode 85 - MTGOX and Malleability What on earth is wrong with MTGox Transaction Malleability Credits MT Gox and Malleability was produced by Adam B. Levine, edited by Denise Levine and featured Andreas M. Antonopoulos, Stephanie Murphy and Adam B. Levine Music was provided by ...

[index] [44350] [1158] [45423] [9437] [19281] [6570] [43711] [19754] [24828] [49778]

Magic, MtGox, Bitcoin, a few notes that are not often made clear

This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue MtGox Bitcoins to BTC e Bitcoins in 50 seconds BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http... There's a few details I rarely hear getting air time when people talk about Bitcoin and other Crypto currencies. Also the origin of the now infamous Bitcoin Exchange MtGox (pronouced like Mt. Gox ... Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox shut down Sunday. The website is blank and their Twitter account deleted all tweets. Is this a Bitcoin crisis? Subscribe for more vi... MtGox Bitcoins to BTC Bitcoins in 50 seconds BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http:/...

#