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
GMaxwell in 2006, during his Wikipedia vandalism episode: "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people."
After examining his long record of harmful behavior on open-source software projects, it seems fair to summarize his strengths and weaknesses as follows: (1) He does have excellent programming skills. (2) He likes needs to be in control. (3) He always believes that whatever he's doing is "right" - even if a consensus of other highly qualified people happen to disagree with him (who he rudely dismisses "shrieking masses", etc.) (4) Because of (1), (2), and (3) we are now seeing how dangerous is can be to let him assume power over an open-source software project. This whole mess could have been avoided. This whole only happened because people let Gregory Maxwell "be in charge" of Bitcoin development as CTO of Blockstream; The whole reason the Bitcoin community is divided right now is simply because Gregory Maxwell is dead-set against any increase in "max blocksize" even to a measly 2 MB (he actually threatened to leave the project if it went over 1 MB). This whole problem would go away if he could simply be man enough to step up and say to the Bitcoin community: "I would like to offer my apologies for having been so stubborn and divisive and trying to always be in control. Although it is still my honest personal belief that that a 1 MB 'max blocksize' would be the best for Bitcoin, many others in the community evidently disagree with me strongly on this, as they have been vehement and unrelenting in their opposition to me for over a year now. I now see that any imagined damage to the network resulting from allowing big blocks would be nothing in comparison to the very real damage to the community resulting from forcing small blocks. Therefore I have decided that I will no longer attempt to force my views onto the community, and I shall no longer oppose a 'max blocksize' increase at this time." Good luck waiting for that kind of an announcement from GMax! We have about as much a chance of GMax voluntarily stepping down as leader of Bitcoin, as Putin voluntarily stepping down as leader of Russia. It's just not in their nature. As we now know - from his 10-year history of divisiveness and vandalism, and from his past year of stonewalling - he would never compromise like this, compromise is simply not part of his vocabulary. So he continues to try to impose his wishes on the community, even in the face of ample evidence that the blocksize could easily be not only 2 MB but even 3-4 MB right now - ie, both the infrastructure and the community have been empirically surveyed and it was found that the people and the bandwidth would both easily support 3-4 MB already. But instead, Greg would rather use his postion as "Blockstream CTO" to overrule everyone who supports bigger blocks, telling us that it's impossible. And remember, this is the same guy who a few years ago was also telling us that Bitcoin itself was "mathematically impossible". So here's a great plan get rich: (1) Find a programmer who's divisive and a control freak and who overrides consensus and who didn't believe that Bitcoin was possible and and doesn't believe that it can do simple "max blocksize"-based scaling (even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary). (2) Invest $21+55 million in a private company and make him the CTO (and make Adam Back the CEO - another guy who also didn't believe that Bitcoin would work). (3) ??? (4) Profit! Greg and his supporters say bigblocks "might" harm Bitcoin someday - but they ignore the fact that smallblocks are already harming Bitcoin now. Everyone from Core / Blockstream mindlessly repeats Greg's mantra that "allowing 2 MB blocks could harm the network" - somehow, someday (but actually, probably not: see Footnotes , , , and  below). Meanhwhile, the people who foolishly put their trust in Greg are ignoring the fact that "constraining to 1 MB blocks is harming the community" - right now (ie, people's investments and businesses are already starting to suffer). This is the sad situation we're in. And everybody could end up paying the price - which could reach millions or billions of dollars if people don't wake up soon and get rid of Greg Maxwell's toxic influence on this project. At some point, no matter how great Gregory Maxwell's coding skills may be, the "money guys" behind Blockstream (Austin Hill et al.), and their newer partners such as the international accounting consultancy PwC - and also the people who currently hold $5-6 billion dollars in Bitcoin wealth - and the miners - might want to consider the fact that Gregory Maxwell is so divisive and out-of-touch with the community, that by letting him continue to play CTO of Bitcoin, they may be in danger of killing the whole project - and flushing their investments and businesses down the toilet. Imagine how things could have been right now without GMax. Just imagine how things would be right now if Gregory Maxwell hadn't wormed his way into getting control of Bitcoin:
We'd already have a modest, simple "max blocksize"-based scaling solution on the table - combined with all the other software-based scaling proposals in the pipeline (SegWit, IBLT, etc.)
The community would be healthy instead of bitterly divided.
If we hadn't wasted the past year on this whole unnecessary "max blocksize" debate, who knows what other kinds of technological and financial innovations we would have been dreaming up by now.
There is a place for everyone. Talented, principled programmers like Greg Maxwell do have their place on software development projects. Things would have been fine if we had just let him work on some complicated mathematical stuff like Confidential Transactions (Adam Back's "homomorphic encryption") - because he's great for that sort of thing. (I know Greg keeps taking this as a "back-handed (ie, insincere) compliment" from me nullc - but I do mean it with all sincerity: I think he have great programming and cryptography skills, and I think his work on Confidential Transactions could be a milestone for Bitcoin's privacy and fungibility. But first Bitcoin has to actually survive as a going project, and it might not survive if he continues insist on tring to impose his will in areas where he's obviously less qualified, such as this whole "max blocksize" thing where the infrastructure and the market should be in charge, not a coder.) But Gregory Maxwell is too divisive and too much of a control freak (and too out-of-touch about what the technology and the market are actually ready for) to be "in charge" of this software development project as a CTO. So this is your CTO, Bitcoin. Deal with it. He dismissed everyone on Wikipedia back then as "shrieking masses" and he dismisses /btc as a "cesspool" now. This guy is never gonna change. He was like this 10 years ago, and he's still like this now. He's one of those arrogant C/C++ programmers, who thinks that because he understands C/C++, he's smarter than everyone else. It doesn't matter if you also know how to code (in C/C++ or some other langugage). It doesn't matter if you understand markets and economics. It doesn't matter if you run a profitable company. It doesn't even matter if you're Satoshi Nakamoto:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/ Gregory Maxwell is in charge of Bitcoin now - and he doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks. He has and always will simply "do whatever he thinks is right without the burden of explaining himself to you" - even he has to destroy the community and the project in the process. That's just the kind of person he is - 10 years ago on Wikipedia (when he was just one of many editors), and now (where he's managed to become CTO of a company which took over Satoshi's respository and paid off most of its devs). We now have to make a choice:
Either the investors, miners, and businesspeople (including the financial backers of Blockstream) - ie, everyone who Gregory Maxwell tends to dismiss as "shrieking masses" - eventually come to the realization that placing their trust in a guy like Gregory Maxwell as CTO of Blockstream has been a huge mistake.
Or this whole project sinks into irrelevance under the toxic influence of this divisive, elitist control-freak - Blockstream CTO Gregory Maxwell.
If Bitcoin usage and blocksize increase, then mining would simply migrate from 4 conglomerates in China (and Luke-Jr's slow internet =) to the top cities worldwide with Gigabit broadban - and price and volume would go way up. So how would this be "bad" for Bitcoin as a whole??
It may well be that small blocks are what is centralizing mining in China. Bigger blocks would have a strongly decentralizing effect by taming the relative influence China's power-cost edge has over other countries' connectivity edge. – ForkiusMaximus
Blockchain Neutrality: "No-one should give a shit if the NSA, big businesses or the Chinese govt is running a node where most backyard nodes can no longer keep up. As long as the NSA and China DON'T TRUST EACH OTHER, then their nodes are just as good as nodes run in a basement" - ferretinjapan
Luke-Jr is already trying to sabotage Bitcoin Classic, first lying and saying it "has no economic consensus", "no dev consensus", "was never proposed as a hardfork" (?!?) - and now trying to scare off miners by adding a Trojan pull-request to change the PoW (kicking all miners off the network)
Greg Maxwell u/nullc says "The next miner after them sets their minimum [fee] to some tiny value ... and clears out the backlog and collects a bunch of funds that the earlier miner omitted" - like it's a BAD THING. Greg is proposing a SUPPLY-LIMITING AND PRICE-FIXING CARTEL, like it's a GOOD THING.
He is now bad-mouthing Nakamoto Consensus, calling it:
"a majority hashpower cartel undermining the decentralization of the network" (?!?)
He doesn't see that the only one creating a cartel is Greg himself, in collusion with certain miners who want to induce artificially high fees by preventing more efficient / cheaper miners from entering the market, when he says:
"They can turn their nose up at fee paying transactions. Then the next miner after them sets their minimum to some tiny value 10nanobitcoin/byte, clears out the backlog and collects a bunch of funds that the earlier miner omitted."
This is the smoking gun where Greg proudly shows the world that he is anti-competition. This is why Greg's views are tolerated only on a (heavily) censored forum like r\bitcoin - while on a (lightly) censored forum like btc his views are considered repugnant by most sane people. Because:
Greg does not understand economics;
Greg has become the corrupt enabler of a cartel, artificially inflating fees by artificially limiting the supply of blockspace.
Greg (and the miners who support him) seized power by exploiting an accident of history. As we know, due to a series of unfortunate historical accidents, Greg (and the miners who support him) became a "de facto" centralized influence on a certain vital aspect of the world's emerging dominant cryptocurrency, Bitcoin - namely:
its money velocity
This has given Greg a weird kind of power, which he is relishing (perhaps unconsciously) for who-knows-what unsavory reasons. And so here we are, several years into the "blocksize debate"...
still arguing with Greg; and
still allowing Greg, one of the most economically ignorant dipshits the world has ever known, to centrally dictate Bitcoin's money velocity...
...via his unfair exploitation of certain accidental, temporary, "contingent", historical imperfections in Bitcoin's exising codebase and governance process. Satoshi would be ashamed of Greg. As the initial developer of Bitcoin, Satoshi certainly could have exploited (or even introduced) a bunch of "accidental, temporary, "contingent", historical imperfections in Bitcoin's codebase and governance process" - for his own advantage. But Satoshi made extra efforts to not exercise centralized influence over the economic aspects of Bitcoin. Satoshi made sure that the system he created was as minimal and clean as possible, confining itself to providing only what was needed:
a permissionless decentralized time-stamping (global sequentialization) service
based on a worldwide hashing competition for an economically valuable token.
Actually, as Greg pointed out at the time, such a system is indeed "mathematically impossible". That was the first historical example of Greg's economic ignorance. When Greg thought that Bitcoin would never work because he could prove that it was "mathematically impossible" - he was right - but only about the mathematics, not about the economics! Bitcoin works because of certain subtle and clever economic incentives which Satoshi built into the system - incentivizing miners to build on the longest valid chain, where the value of switching to another chain becomes stochastically, vanishingly small as more blocks are appended to the "main" chain. It is important to understand Greg's fundamental error there...
because it's also the same fundamental error which many centralized "banksters" commit when they misunderstand and inevitably mis-implement their "blockchain technology"...
when they just can't bring themselves to endow their "blockchain" with its own valuable token...
which is the essential thing providing the economic incentives for mining, which holds the whole system together...
because they just can't bring themselves to let go of the immense awesome Olympian power they get from being able to centrally print up unlimited quantities of their debt-based "fiat" currency.
Now, Greg just can't bring himself to let go of the immense awesome Olympian power he gets from being able to:
centrally control Bitcoin's minimum fees...
by centrally controlling its maximum blocksize...
by exercising "undue influence" over certain historical accidental imperfections in Bitcoin's codebase and governance.
It all comes down to the same thing: power corrupts.
Central bankers became corrupt due to certain historical accidents giving them undue influence over our "fiat" money supply.
Greg has become corrupt due to certain historical accidents sgiving him undue influence over our Bitcoin transaction supply.
It is also worth noting that it is an insurgent miner, u/ViaBTC, who is most outspoken in support of Bitcoin Unlimited, which decentralizes the decision about blocksize - away from would-be central planners like Greg, and away from any miners who run Greg's less-efficient code. https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=author%3Aviabtc&sort=top&restrict_sr=on https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=viabtc&restrict_sr=on&sort=top&t=all It's a good thing Satoshi and not Greg had control over Bitcoin's original codebase and governance and economics. Bitcoin will prosper much more when Greg no longer has control over Bitcoin's current codebase and governance and economics. Greg didn't understand the economics of Bitcoin when Satoshi first explained it to him - and he still doesn't understand certain key aspects of the economics of Bitcoin as explained these days by people such as JohnBlocke, ForkiusMaximus, awemany, tsontar, pecuniology, ferretinjapan, Capt Roger Murdock, jtoomim, Peter R - and the many, many others who have been repeating the same simple and well-known economic axiom for these past few years: The market determines demand (transactions), supply (blockspace), price (in CNY, USD, EUR etc.), and fees. Note, in the above scenario, that "supply" in this case corresponds to "blockspace" or "space on the blockchain" - ie, the supply of transactions, which is a commodity (a generic good or service) provided by miners, in return for fees and new coins. This number has grown continuously throughout the history of Bitcoin - determined in decentralized fashion, by the market - as miners make their own decisions on fees versus space, trying to maximize their profits and minimize their orphans. (Meanwhile, is has been observed that the square of Bitcoin's throughput or transactional supply - which could be taken as a rough proxy for adoption - has historically corresponded to the price - which may be an interesting instance of Metcalfe's law. Conversely, this would mean that suppressing the Bitcoin blocksize is a way of suppressing Bitcoin adoption, which in turn is a way of suppressing Bitcoin price.) The supply of space on the blockchain is the number Greg now wants to control by imposing his own artificial, arbitrary, centrally planned limit. It doesn't matter what the "specific" number is (currently it's 1 MB every 10 minutes) - what matters is that Greg wants to centrally limit this number - a number which should be set by the market, not by Greg. Central planning is damaging - making BitcoinCore vulnerable to competitors not limited by central planning. Attempting to centrally control Bitcoin's blocksize could lead to the following scenarios:
At the appropriate time (eg, a "Schelling point", perhaps motivated by one or more crisis events involving network congestion, transaction delays, unacceptably high fees, falling market cap), Bitcoin may fork to another implementation (such as Bitcoin Unlimited) where supply is determined by the market and not by Greg; or
An alt-coin could take over Bitcoin's market dominance.
In other words, "Bitcoin maximalism" could be threatened if we let Greg centrally control the blocksize, instead of letting the decentralized market control the blocksize. Yes, it really is that simple, folks. And, yes, Greg really is that stupid (about economics) to the point where he is now actually publicly and proudly declaring that he should be able to centrally impose a maximum on the supply of space on the blockchain - and thus also centrally impose a minimum on the fees for space on that blockchain. Plus he also has stated elsewhere that he recognizes that he is actively suppressing price and adoption - and he thinks it's ok for him to have have that power also!
Greg Maxwell has now publicly confessed that he is engaging in deliberate market manipulation to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price. He could be doing this so that he and his associates can continue to accumulate while the price is still low (1 BTC = $570, ie 1 USD can buy 1750 "bits")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4wgq48/greg_maxwell_has_now_publicly_confessed_that_he/ Power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether it's a "constitutional blindspot" - or whether Greg is personally (perhaps unconsciously) relishing the vast power he now enjoys by being able to control the "transaction supply" (and the "transaction price") for the world's first major cryptocurrency - it's irrelevant. Greg should not have all this power. The market should have this power. If Greg continues to have this power, it could seriously hurt Bitcoin. Let the market decide. Of course, maximums for blocksizes - and minimums for fees - will inevitably be determined by somebody (or "somebodies). In this debate, we need to decide who that "somebody" should be:
Greg Maxwell, or
the users of Bitcoin
Economics is an area where Greg displays extreme ignorance. Greg is apparently ignorant about economics than the average person who has a cursory understanding of basic economic concepts such as markets, competition, supply, demand, pricing and elasticity. Greg does have a "constitutional gift" for understanding the mathematics of cryptography and the dynamics of C++ programs running on computers. But he also seems to have a "constitutional blindspot" when it comes to understanding the dynamics of free markets made up of real human beings competing in terms of supply and demand, price and fees. This is easy for anyone to see! You don't need a degree in Economics to understand economics better than Greg! This is why it can be said that Greg displays "extreme economic ignorance". And this is why he has become very unliked in the free parts of the Bitcoin ecosystem now: because of his "extreme economic ignorance" - and his general lack of empathy and self-awareness where he has actually come to think that he likes screwing over the "shreaking [sic] masses", whom he can then have the pleasure of ignoring.
GMaxwell in 2006, during his Wikipedia vandalism episode: "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people."
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
Wikipedians on Greg Maxwell in 2006 (now CTO of Blockstream): "engaged in vandalism", "his behavior is outrageous", "on a rampage", "beyond the pale", "bullying", "calling people assholes", "full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults", "pretends to be an admin", "he seems to think he is above policy"…
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5i0a40/john_blocke_bitcoin_economics_in_one_lesson/ Or some of the writings of guys like u/ForkiusMaximus - who understands the "market dynamics" of Bitcoin in a way which Greg will never be able to. Unfortunately, Greg seems to think that "economic stuff" is irrelevant - as it's based on stuff involving the "shreaking [sic] masses" - but that's just because Greg doesn't get stuff involving economics. Economics is largely a social science, an area where Greg's skills are woefully inadequate - to the point where the epithet "idiot savant" perhaps really does apply to him. In this latest display of his profound ignorance of market dynamics:
Greg is openly proposing a supply-limiting and price-fixing CARTEL.
And cartels are so frowned upon by people who understand society and economics that they are often made illegal. That statement from Greg linked at the start of this OP is seriously one of the most ignorant things ever publicly uttered in the history of economics. Greg has become so breathtakingly arrogant, so accustomed to "centrally planning" all the code for this cryptocurrency, that he has somehow fallen into believing that he should be able to centrally dictate parameters that depend on factors outside the code, in the marketplace. Greg is in an incredibly powerful position - due to his prominence, he really is able to exert a vast amount of (undue) influence over certain parameters of the world's emerging dominant cryptocurrency which should be market-based, not centrally planned. Satoshi would be ashamed of Greg's cartel creation and currency manipulation. Satoshi wisely understood that the role of the coder is merely to provide a certain minimal framework. Satoshi never specified any centrally planned blocksize that would override the market-based blocksize. Satoshi understood that the only function of the Bitcoin network was to provide:
a permissionless decentralized time-stamping (global sequentialization) service, based on a hashing contest for a valuable token
The system that Satoshi had designed was bigger than what Greg could wrap his mind around. Greg is "constitutionally gifted" to be able to understand things like:
the (deterministic) mathematics of cryptography
the (deterministic) behavior of a von Neumann architecture computer executing C++ programs
And Greg does possess enough "game theory" understanding to be able to understand:
the (largely non-deterministic) behavior of a peer-to-peer network running crytpocurrency mining and validating nodes under Nakamoto Consensus
But Greg is apparently "constitutionally blind" about certain other things too - and generally those are things involving more "social" sciences, including economics. A toxic feedback loop has developed between Greg's central planning and certain miners' natural greed for higher fees - and their natural tendency to desire to prevent additional, more efficient miners from competing with them by offering lower fees. Where we are now
Greg Maxwell is imposing a cartel and engaging in centralized artificial supply-limiting and price-fixing...
by imposing his own centrally planned, artificially high minimum price for fees...
by imposing his own centrally planned artificially low blocksize...
by unfairly taking advantage of a "random" (accidental) accident in Bitcoin's legacy code: the "friction" induced by a legacy, temporary 1 MB anti-spam kludge...
Central planner Greg Maxwell has colluded with the centralized mining cartel for so long, he now thinks that competition is a bad thing - and limiting supply and doing price-fixing is a good thing! He was already an economic idiot who knew nothing about markets - now as the corrupt enabler of a centralized cartel, Greg wants to prevent more-efficient miners from out-competing less-efficient ones. Please, for the sake of Bitcoin, Greg: Stick to mathematics and coding, which is what you do best. And let the market continue to do what it does best. The miners should determine the blocksize. Not Greg Maxwell.
SegWitCoin (SWC) is a Proof-of-Burn based colored coin and not the real Bitcoin
When you send your real bitcoins to a segwit address those real bitcoins are burned and segwitcoins are created (proof-of-burn initial distribution). If at some later state it happens that SegWitCoins are unfit for the economy due to massive vulnerabilities the new and untested code introduces then it can very easily happen that all SegWit TXs become invalid and coins held in SegWit TXs will most likely be redeemed by miners (anyone-can-steal). For that reason I advise never to start using SegWit to maintain the original stake in BTC. However, according to this out: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 GMaxwell wants to destroy all non-segwit bitcoins in the future as if they never existed, delete it completely from the block chain. SegWitCoin indeed is an altcoin and has nothing to do with Bitcoin. It is a colored coin solution, parasitic to the bitcoin's block chain and it wants to take over. Since SegWit introduces a lot of complexity it will most likely have vulnerabilities similarly to the DAO. I wouldn't be surprised if the DAO was a test case for what is to come when SegWit gets activated. DAO was running on the Ethereum chain similarly to how SWC would be running on the Bitcoin chain. It will most likely happen that SWC will be trading at a different price than the un-tainted real BTC because SWC introduces additional risks that are not present in the original BTC.
Gregory Maxwell /u/nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
UPDATE: This post was inspired by a similar previous post which also has lots of great points, but the current post has a slightly different focus because: (1) This post assumes ignorance (not dishonesty) on the part of nullc. (2) This post basically gives a list of a bunch of sources on Wikipedia talking about oligarchy and plutocracy, as a starting point for anyone interested in this stuff. Gregory Maxwell nullc has repeatedly shown that he has a very weak grasp of the political and economic realities shaping our world today. He should not be (actually nobody should be) in charge of setting major economic policies and parameters (eg money velocity aka "max blocksize") for the most important non-state-based currency in the history of humanity (Bitcoin). Are serious investors and businesspeople going to believe in a new currency whose economic parameters (eg money velocity aka "max blocksize") are centrally planned by a private for-profit corporation Blockstream whose CTO and CEO (Gregory Maxwell nullc and Adam Back adam3us) have repeatedly shown that they are totally clueless when it comes to markets and economics? I don't even know where to begin to school this guy on the reality of politics and economics in the world today. It would take literally years of reading up on events in the mainstream media and online in order for him to get familiar enough with this stuff to stop blurting out ridiculously ignorant statements like:
"Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks" is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies.
Some contemporary authors have characterized current conditions in the United States as oligarchic in nature. Simon Johnson wrote that "the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent," a structure which he delineated as being the "most advanced" in the world. Jeffrey A. Winters wrote that "oligarchy and democracy operate within a single system, and American politics is a daily display of their interplay." Bernie Sanders,opined in a 2010 The Nation article that an "upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class … In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country." The top 1% in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928. In 2011, according to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined." French economist Thomas Piketty states in his 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed." A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University, and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, was released in April 2014, which stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." It also suggested that "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise." Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey Winters with respect to the US. Winters has posited a comparative theory of "oligarchy" in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a "civil oligarchy" like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection. Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it; that is, economic elites and interest groups are influential. ... In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery," due to the Citizens United ruling, which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates.
It used to be that citizens in large numbers, mobilized by labor unions or political parties or a single uniting cause, determined the course of American politics. After World War II, a swelling middle class was the most powerful voting bloc, while, in those same decades, the working and middle classes enjoyed comparatively greater economic prosperity than their wealthy counterparts. Kiss all that goodbye. We're now a country run by rich people.
Winters conceives of oligarchy not as rule by the few, but as a kind of minority power created by great concentrations of material wealth. Compatible with a wide range of regimes, oligarchy can co-exist and even be “fused” with democracy as it is today in the United States.
The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.
While the middle class disappears and more Americans fall into poverty, the wealthiest people in our country are using their wealth and political power to protect their privileged status at everyone else's expense.
"Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Moore avowed to tens of thousands of protesters. "Let me say that again. And please, someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once; we’re not greedy, we’ll be happy to hear it just once. "Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals ... -- most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined."
America is not broke. Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a 2013 book by French economist Thomas Piketty. It focuses on wealth and income inequality in Europe and the United States since the 18th century. It was initially published in French (as Le Capital au XXIe siècle) in August 2013; an English translation by Arthur Goldhammer followed in April 2014. The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability.
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Former President Jimmy Carter had some harsh words to say about the current state of America's electoral process, calling the country "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" resulting in "nominations for president or to elect the president." When asked this week by The Thom Hartmann Program (via The Intercept) about the Supreme Court's April 2014 decision to eliminate limits on campaign donations, Carter said the ruling "violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system."
When the Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote the 2011 Vanity Fair magazine article entitled "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%", the title and content supported Stiglitz's claim that the United States is increasingly ruled by the wealthiest 1%. Some researchers have said the US may be drifting towards a form of oligarchy, as individual citizens have less impact than economic elites and organized interest groups upon public policy. A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University), which was released in April 2014, stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts."
Links for the above references (footnotes) in the Wikipedia article on "Plutocracy":  Stiglitz Joseph E. "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" Vanity Fair, May 2011; see also the Democracy Now! interview with Joseph Stiglitz: Assault on Social Spending, Pro-Rich Tax Cuts Turning U.S. into Nation "Of the 1 Percent, by the 1 Percent, for the 1 Percent", Democracy Now! Archive, Thursday, April 7, 2011 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent.
America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.
 Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press. ISBN 067443000X p. 514: "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century  Gilens & Page (2014) Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Perspectives on Politics, Princeton University. Retrieved 18 April 2014. PDF! www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf Finally, it is worth mentioning the notorious "Plutonomy" memo prepared by analysts at Citigroup: https://pissedoffwoman.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/the-plutonomy-reports-download/ Citigroup wrote memos in 2005 and 2006 addressed to investors, basically saying that the world is dividing up more and more into a small group of rich people who drive the economy, surrounded by a large number of poor people whose economic interests can be safely ignored. As the above links show, it is shockingly naïve for Gregory Maxwell u/nullc to claim that policies for fiat currencies are determined by "democracies". If he is this ignorant about the reality of so-called democracies and fiat currencies, one can only wonder how much other stuff he is ignorant about, in his ongoing misguided attempts to impose his own centralized economic planning on Bitcoin.
Everyone has a flawed mind. So this post is just putting his into the spotlight. I think he deserves it since he is actively trying to harm bitcoin by writing to the SEC about his bogus beliefs which include incredibly broad definitions of pyramid schemes that would apply to virtually any investment. Sometimes he makes good points and he seems to put a lot of time and thought into his comments so this will be just looking at a recent comment of his where he gets into the subject of economics. It is always interesting to see computer scientists and cryptographers like Gmaxwell and jstolfi chiming in with their economic expertise. Anyways... https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ql70f/at_any_point_in_time_mining_pools_could_have/dd0gayu/
But it cannot do that if its value keeps increasing, because that will cause people to hoard most of the coins, and that will make the price too volatile for currency use.
actually... if bitcoins value keeps increasing it will get less volatile over time because of the increased liquidity and investor pool. It's easy to see by using extreme examples. If bitcoin was worth a penny a piece and there are only 16 million then a person with 160k could have the potential to drastically effect the market. Whereas now with the current value/market cap someone with that much worth is just a drop in the bucket. It is also amusing how people believe in contradicting things. How is it that people like this believe that bitcoins flaw is that it "keeps increasing" (deflationary) but it is also volatile? Which one is it? It can't be both. Volatile means up and down and not just up.
But it is a fallacy. Scarcity alone does not make something valuable; there are plenty of things that exist only in a finite number, but are quite worthless. To make the argument work, one need to assume also that bitcoin will be increasingly used as a currency for payments.
If you dissect this comment it is pretty pointless. Obviously it takes more than rarity to be valuable. If it only took rarity then a clone of bitcoin would be worth the same as bitcoin.
For that reason, ,a good currency must lose value gradually, so that no one will want to "invest in" (hoard) it. Economists have been saying that for a long time; but Satoshi, being a computer guy rather than econmist, did not believe in that. And I did not believe either -- until I watched bitcoin and saw how the mere expectation of increasing value can wreck a currency.
For loans, an inflationary currency is pretty helpful for the borrower. This perhaps means that bitcoin isn't best suited for loans. And if that is the case it isn't a big deal. In an age where there is incredible debt and where everything is incredibly leveraged and where these two factors contribute to "busts" and boom cycles and failures and bankruptcies where taxpayers pay the bill... how terrible is it to have a currency out there that doesn't lend itself well to being leveraged? Put simply, there are tools that will be built on top of and around bitcoin that will allow people to still utilize debt even in an age where bitcoin is king. Furthermore, along with the decrease in volatility as bitcoin becomes "bigger" there is a certain proportional importance regarding payments. The question isn't "is bitcoin stable enough to allow payments". The question is "is bitcoin stable enough to store your wealth in it?. If the answer to the second question is yes then the answer to the first question is implicitly yes because when you make a payment you are spending only a fraction of your net wealth so the volatility is inconsequential in comparison to the bulk of your wealth.
That is a commonly repeated mantra among bitcoin idealists. But it seems to be mostly wishful thinking. There are three major classes of bitcoin "users": the "Shoppers", who use bitcoin as a currency to make or receive payments that they can't do with banks or PayPal; the "Traders", who use it as an instrument for day-trading within the exchanges; and the "Holders", who have some bitcoin and intend to keep them until they are much more valuable than today. The Shoppers have no reason to care about the 21 M cap or any other "sacred principles". All they want is see their payments reach the destination. The Traders don't care about principles either; they like bitcoin because it has huge volatility (and they are the main cause of it). Many traders do not know how bitcoin works, and don't care. All they need to know is that it can be bought and sold, and the price varies like crazy. The Holders are the only ones who would care about the 21 M cap. But there is not much they can do, if it is in danger. Their choices are to dump and lose their expected gains, or continue holding and hoping that their expectations will be met in spite of the change. Does not seem a clear-cut choice to me...
since we are actually talking about the "value" of bitcoin and since holders affect the "value" of bitcoin the most, then it seems that the mantra is pretty self evident. Obviously a supply change would upset holders more than shoppers but it is the holders who keep the value high (and not the shoppers). Shoppers do, however, benefit from a high value because it helps with liquidity which reduces the spread and increases chances of acceptance.
This graph shows Bitcoin price and volume (ie, blocksize of transactions on the blockchain) rising hand-in-hand in 2011-2014. In 2015, Core/Blockstream tried to artificially freeze the blocksize - and artificially froze the price. Bitcoin Classic will allow volume - and price - to freely rise again.
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/how-we-know-bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble/#selection-59.4-68.0 (Scroll down to see the graph - also note there is a typo in the legend: "Bitcoin market map" should say "Bitcoin market cap[italization]".) Without artificial limits, Bitcoin volume and price are naturally and tightly correlated. This tight, lockstep correlation between those two lines during 2011-2014 has been absolutely amazing - one of the tightest correlations you'll ever observe in any dynamic system anywhere, in economics, sociology, or nature. Price and volume rose (and fell) hand-in-hand for 4 years straight - one of the most majestic examples of emergent phenomena in the whole history of economics. Left to run its natural course, this graph would probably have continued in lockstep, and thus would have eventually gone into the history books of future generations, marking the inexorable emergence and dominance of the cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin - the inevitable triumph of humanity's first decentralized and permissionless store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account - steadily rising through the years in price and volume - and in usefulness. Then in late 2014, a new company called Blockstream tried to block this natural progression. The oligarchs behind the ancien régime of debt-backed, violence-enforced infinite fiat thought they had figured out a clever way to attempt to make their last pièce de résistance while making some money too. They brought out their their usual grab-bag of assorted dirty tricks which they typically use to take down any new social or economic or political movement that promises to liberate people from the stranglehold of private central bankers:
They bought off the Core developers, bringing them into the Blockstream corporation, with a measly initial $ 21 million in funding, and now adding another measly $ 55 million (mere chump change compared with the tsunami of trillions of dollars in wealth which Bitcoin's market cap could eventually represent).
They figured out how to "play" the Core devs like fiddles, turning them into "useful idiots": taking advantage of their cypherpunk sensibilities and economic innocence in order to trick them into thinking that the only metric of decentralization was "The blocksize must remain small enough for Luke-Jr to run a node over a slow-ass internet connection in the backwaters of Florida" - while making them ignore all other metrics, in particular: decentralization of mining, and price & adoption.
So far, Blockstream thinks they're winning in their battle to control Bitcoin.
They succeeded (during 2015) in splitting the community, maybe even creating even a few more useful idiots in the process.
They succeeded (during 2015) in suppressing the price: as you can see by observing how the lockstep correlation between price and volume diverged in 2015, with the price now lagging and sagging below the volume for the first time ever.
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK But can they keep spreading around their fiat and FUD to continue fooling all the people all the time? Probably not. Because... Now you can choose to run a repo without Blockstream's artificial scarcity on blocksize and transactions on the blockchain. Now, instead of running the Bitcoin Core repo from Blockstream, you can run any one of these another tested and deployed repos, which do notartificially limit the blocksize to 1 MB:
Bitcoin is a natural, market-based and community-based, emergent phenomenon. At its heart, in the words of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is a P2P Electronic Cash System where Alice "A" can send to Bob "B" some amount of Coins "C", secured via a cryptographic signature. It may come as a shock to certain people's egos, but even if most of the devs were to suddenly stop working now - the current system would probably work fine for the next few years - with investors and businesspeople continuing to gradually increase the price and volume in accordance with the desires of the worldwide market, and miners and full-nodes continuing to gradually increase the "max blocksize" in accordance with the capacity of the worldwide infrastructure - and everyone continuing to innovate and participate in the growth of the system in accordance with the desires of the worldwide community. Bitcoin doesn't really need a whole lot of interference from devs trying to centrally plan what the "max blocksize" should be - or mods trying to centrally control what the "consensus of opinions" should be. These kinds of things are better left to just naturally emerge on their own. Central planning and control are not needed. As we have already seen, when the market is allowed to determine Bitcoin price and volume on its own, they both naturally go up, hand-in-hand - while the value of centrally-planned fiat goes down and and down. And when the community is allowed to determine upvotes and downvotes on its own, the quality of debate naturally goes up - while the quality of centrally-controlled debate on censored forums goes down and down. We all know that Bitcoin is supposed to be trustless and permissionless. Bitcoin development should also be egoless. As a dev or a mod, it's hard to "step aside" and let the market or the community decide. It's much more tempting to interfere: enforce a limit here, delete a comment there. But the market and the community are emergent phenomena. They work best when devs and mods learn to put aside their egos and "step back" and let the market and the community do what they will. This is the raison d'être of Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Bitcoin XT: learning to let the market and the community decide again - learning to step back again, and let the price and volume go up again, with no unnecessary interference from devs or mods. https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list
The following post by belcher_ is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7mh8c2 The original post's content was as follows:
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 here we are today at $15000. 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 don't 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 :P
Why you shouldn't buy Hashfasts new "up to 800GH/s" "product"
gmaxell, moderator of the customhardware subforum on bitcointalk.org made an accusation against hashfast so damning that they deleted his text from their forum thread (in the subforum gmaxwell moderates...). Here are gmaxwells words in full:
Just in case people are forgetting. Hashfast is a bunch of thieves. I do not say this lightly: They have literally taken my coin, violated their contract, and provided me with nothing in return. I paid them 98 BTC for hardware "scheduled" to be delivered in October. It's March 2nd now have received nothing and they have not responded to any of my past private efforts to resolve the matter— now spanning months. (Copies of communications and certified letter tracking numbers available on request). I am not some competitor or troll: I'm a moderator of this sub-forum and a developer of the Bitcoin reference software. I have no financial interest or otherwise in any other mining hardware company. I mine personally to support the Bitcoin network. I've made a genuine effort to resolve this matter from hashfast, but it seems instead that they plan on taking my funds and running. I sometimes feel bad that I probably do get "more fair" treatment than others with a lower profile in the community, but if they're willing to do this to me then what are they willing to do to you? Business screwups and delays happen, but in my opinion Hashfast has gone far beyond those boundaries and into the space of outright theft. Every additional sale hashfast makes while screwing over me and other miners in this manner damages the Bitcoin ecosystem and discourages me— and presumably other small miners— from participating. I've taken what I feel to be a fairly soft hand in this so far, in the hopes that they'd make things right after they cleared up some of their startup hurdles— but with new products being promoted, it seems that isn't their plan. I urge everyone to provide HashFast with no further business until they make right by their past customers. If you're looking for hardware and haven't been (rightfully) scared off by the astronomic prices being charged by current hardware vendors— I can personally vouch for Bitmain's Antminer S1s (*), which are delivered promptly, with absolutely no pre-order nonsense, and perform precisely as specified. Cointerra products also appear to be competently handled (though current units only deliver ~1.6TH/s against their original 2TH/s spec, and at least my unit has some hashrate stability problems when run at full speed), and they've treated their customers with reasonable respect (e.g. compensating customers for delays above and beyond the contract). (*) Disclosure, fwiw: Last year Bitmain sent me a prototype 90GH/s antminer for testing/development prior to their public shipping. I subsequently bought a couple others as a normal customer and have been pretty happy with them as have virtually all of their other customers. Rather than seeing this as a source of potential bias here I'd point out that any well run mining hardware company would get pre-production units out to developers in order to avoid the early product missteps that other companies like HashFast have had.
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 here we are today at $15000. 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.
Market Cap (USD) 457.49 M Book Value per Share 2,153.25 Free Float in % 79.56 Cash Flow per Share 151.14 As someone who follows the price of bitcoin I can tell you these movements are very common, price volatility is very high. So I think you are wrong, also I dont think the elite use it as piggy bank think in terms of cash, real estate, stocks, resources. Dont think the elite bother to much with bitcoin although there might be a few. : Get the latest Maxwell Industries stock price and detailed information including news, historical charts and realtime prices. Gregory Maxwell is a Bitcoin Core developer and Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Blockstream.. Sidechains. Greg was one of the key architects of the two-way peg which makes sidechains possible.He has been a Bitcoin core developer since 2011, and is one of the most active reviewers of cryptographic protocol proposals in the Bitcoin industrial ecosystem. It seems the last time Ghislaine Maxwell used Reddit, her last post was about someone mysteriously sending a billion in bitcoin on June 30.
Bitcoin Curve ball - Current Bitcoin Price [May 26th 2020]
Bitcoin Price Predictions From Zero to Millions Experts Opinions - Duration: 22:16. Aimstone 49,557 views. 22:16. Ray Dalio on the Economy, Pandemic, China's Rise: Full Interview - Duration ... The current prices of Bitcoin $8,893.56 The current prices of Ethereum $202.58 The current prices of Dash $72.61 The current prices of Litecoin $42.58 These are the current prices of ... But what effect will the booming hash rate have on the price of BTC? According to Bitcoin investor and the co-host of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser, BTC is likely to follow the hash rate higher ... BREAKING: BITCOIN IS ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING IT HASN'T DONE SINCE $381 (btc price news today 2020 ta) - Duration: 35:24. Crypto Crew University 28,301 views 35:24 Bitcoin will crash 75% soon in 2020 before the 2021 BTC bull run can begin! price targets, TA & NYSE - Duration: 29:11. OPTICALARTdotCOM 74,782 views