
Bitcoin Pioneer Says New Coin to Work on Multiple Blockchains - SirLJ
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/bitcoin-pioneer-says-new-coin-to-work-on-multiple-blockchains
======
argo_
> _Its authors will receive a one-time retention of 20% (2 million) of the
> initial MTN supply._

Need to say anything else? Sounds really shady to me.. Anyway, the Sidechain
Project which is in development by the Blockstream team is supposed to do
that, but above the bitcoin protocol itself, not in a 'new coin'.

~~~
dabockster
Classic pump and dump (PnD).

If they were serious about developing a better crypto, they would have
divested almost all of their coins. This ratio shows that the devs only want
to make a quick buck.

~~~
artursapek
This is the depressing state of the cryptocurrency world these days. A sucker
born every minute, and an "ICO" starting every hour.

~~~
anonymous5133
Agree. If devs want their ICO to be taken seriously then they need to do the
leg work first and show us at leas a working prototype.

------
wyldfire
> Bloq and Metronome’s authors will receive 20% of the initial MTN offering as
> a one-time author’s retention.

I don't know Jeff Garzik's reputation well, but I've heard his name many
times.

The fact that he endorses Segwit2x [1] and that he wants a premine/grant for
his altcoin are concerning IMO.

[1] [https://medium.com/@jgarzik/why-segwit2x-is-the-best-path-
fo...](https://medium.com/@jgarzik/why-segwit2x-is-the-best-path-for-
bitcoin-d9a4103f2fda)

~~~
Kiro
What's the problem with endorsing Segwit2x?

~~~
rothbardrand
It would degrade Bitcoin security, but worse, it's untested, behind several
releases, has no replay protection and the nodes are designed to pretend to be
core nodes to confuse the network.

It's literally malware at this point.

~~~
mrb
I did not think Core propaganda would have made its way to HN :-(

Segwit2x would _not_ degrade security. People think it would because they
assume larger blocks would reduce the absolute number of full nodes, but
historically this is not what we have seen:
[https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/918133693964865538](https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/918133693964865538)

The "untested" claim is false. The BTC1 reference implementation has unit
tests, and is currently run by at least ~700 nodes:
[https://coin.dance/nodes](https://coin.dance/nodes)

The fact the BTC1 repo is currently based on Core 0.14.2 (released June 18,
2017) instead of Core 0.15.0.1 (released Sep 19, 2017) is not really much of a
problem.

It has been explained numerous time why we do _not_ want replay protection: to
remove the need to upgrade millions of SPV wallets.

BTC1 nodes do not pretend to be Core nodes to "confuse" the network. They did
it
([https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/28ebbdb1f4ab632a1500b...](https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/28ebbdb1f4ab632a1500b2c412a157839608fed0))
in response to Bitcoin Core's hostile attempt to disconnect segwit2x nodes
([https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982))
which would have made the network less reliable between now and the HF, by
intentionally disconnecting nodes just because they are not "liked".

~~~
rothbardrand
Also, it's very notable that none of the people supporting the 2x scam
understand bitcoin, either that or they tell lies about how it works to
support the scam.

If you take the time to read the white paper and listen to the people who are
explaining how things work you won't fall for the propaganda that has you
posting this kind of nonsense.

But I do credit you for admitting that BTC1 is months behind.

~~~
sova
Thanks for discussing this. I have not read the paper, but was hoping you
could provide a link to it. Doubling the supply of currency (well, giving
people who had orange coins an equal number of orange and yellow coins) at no
expense is tempting, but what are the implications down the line?

[https://twitter.com/zorinaq](https://twitter.com/zorinaq) This guy seems to
support it and also knows how Bitcoin works.

~~~
rothbardrand
Bitcoin has layers. One of the layers people don't understand is the layer
called "core". The creators of bitcoin were cypherpunks and so they had a
decade before bitcoin existed where people worked out how such a system would
work. Those cypherpunks became core. While people think of bitcoin as the
software, or the network or the white paper, what it really is, is a
collection of engineers (you have to trust the engineers to trust the software
and network and ultimately money) that is very diverse, and a genuine
meritocracy. Since bitcoin attracted a lot of libertarians and wanna-be-I-
think-I-am-libertarians its relatively easy to say "core is the new evil
overlords! a monopoly!" when the reality is that core is a large number of
people who don't agree on a lot of stuff and have developed a process of
reaching consensus. So, unfortunately, some uneducated non-engineer felon like
Roger Ver can spread a lot of claims about core and those get believed despite
core people explaining patiently in engineering terms why the claims are false
(eg: big blocks are not free scaling, segwit is more efficient, etc.)

Non-engineers simply cannot understand the technology arguments and so they
are manipulatable via social engineering, which in this case is literally
legions of paid shills ([http://birds.bitcoin.com](http://birds.bitcoin.com)
is the attackers site where shills get paid.)

That's the layer that's under attack now- because the powers that be want to
control bitcoin and they can't beat the software, they can't beat the hash
power, but they think they can maybe beat the people. (And in Ver's case, he
shills BCH to keep its price up while unloading it to get more BTC.)

Actually that twitter account is one that I've seen many times before, and I
would not consider him someone who understand how bitcoin works. He seems to
be an engineer who has taken a superficial look and then fallen sway to
propaganda.

This is the thing about bitcoin, there are layers. Here's some of the layers:
1\. "Bitcoin is internet money" 2\. A block chain is a chain of database
entries 3\. I understand what Proof of work is 4\. I understand how economic
incentives work in bitcoin 5\. I understand why PoW will always be better than
PoS 6\. I understand why ethereum can never work (ultimately) 7\. Now I really
understand the economic incentives 8\. Now I understand bitcoin

Of course this is more than a little tongue in cheek.

The white paper can be found here: [https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-
paper](https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper)

But a lot of the standards are found here (in various levels of adoption)...
this bit is really relevant for wallets:
[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips#readme](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips#readme)

Read the white paper at least once before holding any bitcoin. And then re-
read it at least 5 times one the course of 2 years. It has layers and you will
come to understand them over time.

Reading Mastering Bitcoin I understand is really useful too. (I got thrown
into the deep end of btcd so I didn't have that luxury)

~~~
sova
Thanks! I have definitely read the bitcoin white paper sir! I thought there
was a whitepaper about Segwit2x or B2X. I read the original Bitcoin paper very
shortly after it came out (!) and I am confident in my understanding of
Bitcoin, the protocol, how it works, why it is excellent and unparalleled.
However, I did not know that Core was a lot of people, and it makes sense that
the most precarious link in the chain may be the human element. Happy to hear
that the engineers / cypherpunks got it down pat (I was already rather
confident in that) ... Question: why does Ethereum not work in the ultimate?

------
empath75
So basically this guy is forking bitcoin, causing contention between miners,
etc, and now is making a new coin that allows him to profit from that
contention?

~~~
uncletammy
> So basically this guy is forking bitcoin

Nope. ~80% of miners, 90% of Bitcoin businesses, and at least half of the
community are forking Bitcoin.

Jeff just happens to be the lead developer for the new client. The contention
has been there for years and it's been fueled by the horrific sensorship on
the main communication channels.

This is sad to see though. I don't know how he'll find time to juggle both of
these projects.

~~~
rothbardrand
There's no evidence of that, more than %90 of miners are running core, and
there are more businesses opposed to 2x than endorsing it:
[http://nob2x.org](http://nob2x.org)

Meanwhile "signers" of the New York "Agreement"[1] are dropping like flies,
most recent Coinbase that says they will support the core chain.

Hell the biggest "proponents" of 2X aren't willing to risk their own bitcoin
in a swap (eg: Ver who has backed out of such promises in the past too with
BCH)

2X is nothing but a scam to get suckers to sell BTC for B2X while people like
Ver sell B2X to get more BTC!

Its funny how the bitcoin haters talk about censorship-- reality is /r/bitcoin
is not censored, but the entire 2x movement was done behind closed doors, with
no peer review, with a heavily censored slack channel and mailing list-- that
is if you can get on it in the first place... while bitcoin does all this in
public.

2X hasn't had commits or serious work in months last I checked and I really
feel sad for the people who bought the propaganda these scammers are selling.

[1] It's not an agreement when only one side agreed with itself.

~~~
j_s
> reality is /r/bitcoin is not censored

As a complete outsider not paying much attention this is the first time I've
ever seen anyone try to make this claim, it seems easily disproven.

~~~
rothbardrand
It's easily proven-- go there and look at all the /r/btc brigading going on.
The subreddit is full of trolls. And of course whenever one gets abusive and
is banned they cry censorship.

Now look at my comment you are replying to-- -3 -- an attempt to downvote it
into oblivion with no actual responses (other than yours) to the points I
made.

There is censorship going on, but the ones crying the loudest are the worst
offenders.

------
vocatus_gate
Premine/"founders reward"? Another scamcoin doomed to failure.

------
SadWebDeveloper
So now they are trying to sell a Digital-to-Digital (Bit)Coin exchange as a
new currency "to rule them all" because it has a blockchain.

------
perpetualcrayon
I think the big breakthrough with cryptocurrency will be when someone invents
a "Basic Income" cryptocurrency.

I've been thinking about it for a while, and have even started writing up a
specification (may not need to write the actual implementation).

I think it's a tricky problem, but I'm almost 100% certain now that it's
probably going to be invented and used in the near future.

EDIT: And by "near future" I mean "within 5-10 years".

~~~
rothbardrand
This doesn't really make sense. The thing that gives cryptocurrencies value is
that they are scarce. The thing that gives them security is proof of work,
allowing a distributed consensus algorithm that is hard to game.

Cryptocurrency isn't a source of magic money in the sense that you could tap
it for a "basic income" type scheme-- where the recipients are not doing
anything to earn it.

In cryptocurrency every actor in the system has a job that they do, namely,
miners mine and that's how they get paid.

I'm not saying its impossible, it just seems like it doesn't make sense at
first look.

~~~
perpetualcrayon
I agree that it does seem counter-intuitive given what we've come to expect a
cryptocurrency to be.

~~~
setr
Thats.. not a sufficient response..

~~~
rothbardrand
He may have answers to those issues, and I understand he may want to keep them
under his hat until they are thought out.

But know this-- if you want a chance at success, peer review is going to be
needed when you are ready. And a lot of testing.

~~~
perpetualcrayon
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15544554](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15544554)

------
1053r
From the "Owner's Manual" [1], it appears that this is just another ETH ERC20
token. All of the "portability" features of it are just based on atomic swaps,
which means that the security of this token for most purposes is equal to the
security of the lowest security chain on which it lives. Since participating
in this requires being in the ETH ecosystem, and this is not designed to be an
"appcoin" (single use token), but instead is designed to be a general purpose
currency, I'm unclear what it really brings to the table.

Also, it appears that it will only support being on ETH initially. While I
imagine it would be pretty easy to port to ETC, it's probably never going to
live on top of Bitcoin, because the smart contracts would be prohibitive in
terms of cost.

1 -
[https://www.metronome.io/pdf/owners_manual.pdf](https://www.metronome.io/pdf/owners_manual.pdf)

------
acjohnson55
The article is a bit vague on how this works. Does anyone know of a good
summary?

~~~
away2017throw
1\. Promote.

2\. Convert 20% into assets at the peak.

3\. Hide in Uruguay.

~~~
dabockster
You don't even need to hide anywhere. Since there is no regulations on pre-
mines themselves, only ICOs, you _could_ do a pre-mine in the US and be 100%
fine as long as you paid the capital gains tax.

IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile, I'm holding out for the day ETH crashes, ICOs end, and pumpers go
back to using Litecoin forks. I'm just sitting here with a GTX 1060 ready to
mine some scamcoins for lulz.

~~~
jacobush
You get good XMR hash rate with that:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nErHc5OvjkI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nErHc5OvjkI)

