Cloud Hosting

Page 4,424«..10 20..4,4234,4244,425 4,426..4,430 4,440..»

BitGo Reveals Hard Fork Planning; Will Not Support Bitcoin Unlimited – CryptoCoinsNews

March 26, 2017 | Author: admin

With a hard fork looming, BitGo, a multi-signature bitcoin wallet, has advised its customers what to do in the case of a new chain, whether it is Bitcoin Unlimited, which BitGo deems unsupportable, or a supportable option such as Segregated Witness.

Ben Davenport, co-founder and chief technical officer, advised users in a recent blog what actions BitGo will take and gave recommendations on what they should to in the event of a hard fork. BitGo did not assign a high probability of a hard fork until recently.

BitGo will not support Bitcoin Unlimited, which it does not consider supportable. It will support Segregated Witness, (SegWit) which it consider safe and tested in the core code.

BitGo believes any near-term fork will be contentious and bad for the bitcoin ecosystem. Brand dilution and user confusion will remove billions of dollars from the bitcoin market capitalization, Davenport noted.

SegWit, on the other hand, will provide additional block space in the near term.

BitGo cannot predict how the scenario will unfold, but the company will move as quickly as possible to provide solutions to protect customers interests.

Any hard fork introduced without industry-wide consensus will be an altcoin, regardless how much hash power that coin has. The majority of bitcoin exchanges share the same view, Davenport said.

If a hard fork were executed in a supportable manner, BitGo would support it with an API as soon as possible.

To support a hard fork, according to Davenport, it must meet the following:

1. The hard fork has to be coordinated by a clear on-chain mechanism and have a grace period between activation and launch.

2. It must provide strong two-way protection, whereby transactions are only valid on one of the two chains. Minus this measure, users can safely transact separately with splitting techniques that place an excessive burden on the end user.

3. It has to offer wipe out protection, so that once it forks, it remains permanent. The new forks software should not be capable of producing a reorganization back to the original chain as it will wipe out the new chain.

Bitcoin Unlimited does not meet any of these criteria. In addition, there are problems with emergent consensus that can lead to ongoing network splits and reorganizations of arbitrary length chains based on the way miner groups establish consensus parameters.

There are also concerns about the quality of the peer review process and the general code of Bitcoin Unlimited. Because of this, BitGo will not support a Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork in its current form. BitGo will change its position on Bitcoin Unlimited if it makes changes to make the fork supportable.

Davenport recommends users take the following actions if the Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork launches.

1. Pause any outgoing transaction activity from BitGo. Otherwise, transactions can occur on both chains.

2. Keep in close contact with BitGo for assistance in moving coins safely or in splitting coins. BitGo will help customers split their coins, but it cannot determine how long this will take.

3. Once a hard fork has resolved itself back to a single chain due to it being abandoned by miners, or a splitting plan has been deployed, it will be safe to transact again on the original chain.

Should there be a supportable fork, BitGo recommends the following steps.

1. Continue to safety transact on the original network with the BitGo API. Users will not be able to transact on the new fork immediately. Transacting will not affect the coins on that side of the fork.

2. Be ready for block times on the original network to increase significantly, due to an increased load on the network. Execute only necessary transactions and be ready for possibly higher fees for a number of weeks due to the extendednumber of blocks.

3. Transact the value on the new coin by waiting for BitGo to add support for the new coin, or use the two keys with software built by others. BitGo cannot commit to any time frame for supporting the new coin.

Also read: Heres why a hard fork cant work

Malicious forking that undermines the existing minority chain with excess hash power is also a possibility. This can create a chain of empty blocks or a working chain suddenly experiencing a chain reorganization many blocks deep. BitGo considers this to be the same as a 51% attack on the bitcoin network.

In such a case, BitGo recommends halting all bitcoin activity, including outgoing transactions and crediting incoming deposits. One cannot make normal assumptions about block confirmations to finalize a transaction.

Featured image from Shutterstock.

Read the original:
BitGo Reveals Hard Fork Planning; Will Not Support Bitcoin Unlimited - CryptoCoinsNews

BitFury Mines a Block Signalling The SegWit User-activated Soft Fork – The Merkle

March 26, 2017 | Author: admin

The bitcoin scaling debate has taken yet another turn, although very few people saw this latest development coming. BitFury, one of the largest bitcoin mining pools, successfully mined a block on the network that signals for the user-activated SegWit soft fork. A rather controversial decision, although it could signal an end to the scaling debate once and for all.

Recently, apost appeared on Reddit explaining how the BitFury mining pool did something rather unexpected. The pool mined a block supporting the BIP 148 proposal, which effectively signals a user-activated soft fork for SegWit. As one would expect from such a move, it is evident BitFury is tired of the Bitcoin Unlimited shenanigans, which only seem to harm the network and the BTC price.

That being said, effectively signaling for mandatory activation of SegWit deployment is a rather unusual attitude. The user-activated soft fork will force SegWit to be deployed on the bitcoin main net, regardless of reaching amajority consensus. It is not a solution everyone will be happy with by any means, but the debate has escalated quite significantly these past few months. A solution is needed sooner or later, that much is certain.

Currently, it appears miners are not moving to activate either SegWit or Bitcoin Unlimited anytime soon. As long as this uneasy status quo is maintained, transaction costs will mount, putting more money into the miners pockets. Moreover, Bitcoin Unlimited activation would potentially result in creating multiple currencies called Bitcoin and BTU (Bitcoin Unlimited), which wouldnt do the ecosystem much good either. A user-activated soft fork is a plausible solution, albeit still a controversial one.

While it is significant BitFury signals this BIP through its mined blocks, that does not mean SegWit will be activated all of a sudden. A user-activated soft fork still requires majority community consensus and an activation date, which is slightly easier to achieve than just relying on the mining community. There will always be some opposition from those who feel this is not a reasonable solution to end the scaling debate once and for all, although it provides an alternative worth considering.

In the end, it is important to keep in mind a decision like these needs to be taken with both the users and the miners in mind. Users are clearly in favor of Segregated Witness, regardless of how it needs to be activated. Miners are keen on stalling, with a minority actively supporting Bitcoin Unlimited due to increased payouts from specific pools. It will be interesting to keep an eye on how this situation will proceed moving forward.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

See the original post here:
BitFury Mines a Block Signalling The SegWit User-activated Soft Fork - The Merkle

What cloud computing can offer you – Times of Malta

March 26, 2017 | Author: admin

If youre running any sort of business that relies on data structures or web management, theres no denying the asset that cloud computing can provide, says Jack Mizzi, chief marketing and business development officer at BMIT.

Cloud computing really is an easy concept to grasp, but lets go with the analogy route to make it even easier. In the old days, farms and factories needed to generate their own power either through windmills or water wheels. This all changed thanks to power grids, as businesses could just tap into the grid and pay for the power they use, avoiding all costs related to building the power-generating infrastructure.

A good cloud computing provider is essentially that power grid its a one-stop means of getting all sorts of hosted services online. That means that if you require a range of services such as web hosting, data storage and backup, creating your own virtual machines, collaborative tools and business intelligence solution features, and more, you can get them all through a cloud computing services provider.

As they say, the best things come in threes, and cloud computing is no exception to this maxim. Cloud computing can follow a private model, a public one, or a hybrid of the two. As you can imagine, each type comes with its own distinct advantages and is best suited for different scenarios. Well go into the specific differences between all three models.

Public cloud services are generally offered through the internet, by way of companies selling infrastructure, applications or storage options that you can pay for on a pay-per-use model, for example per hour or in bundles of bandwidth consumption.

The big advantage here is that public clouds are generally more cost-effective, making them an excellent choice for small and medium-sized businesses. The caveat, though, is that users do not get to oversee the management of the underlying infrastructure that is storing their data, so the element of trust needs to be considerably higher as theres less direct assurance that your data is being managed the way it should be.

Of course, when youre dealing with very reputable companies that offer public cloud services, there shouldnt be any reason for distrust.

Something else which you should expect with regard to public clouds is that theyre often much less customisable overall youre generally dealing with one-size-fits-all packages, and you can select which services from that package appeal to you the most. Whether this is a positive or negative factor depends entirely on what your operation is and what your outlook on the whole issue is.

Some people actually enjoy the fact that public clouds are less fussy in that regard and it makes it much easier for companies to get moving with tried and tested services, as opposed to having to undergo processes to test how well-optimised a service is for their individual business.

Cloud computing can follow a private model, a public one, or a hybrid of the two

Private clouds are defined by their added security and personalisation. Usually designed with specific businesses in mind, private clouds are the ultimate for tailor-made solutions.

Are private clouds, then, a step up from public clouds? Again, it really depends on what your needs are as a company. If youre running a larger business, it might be easy to feel weighed down by the limits of public clouds. Private clouds give you very similar features, such as self-service and scalability, but with even more independence.

Lets put it another way. With public clouds, its like using a bus. You dont have much say in how it looks or how it drives, but it gets you from point A to point B. With private clouds, youre renting a car, and you get to decide whether you need a hatchback or an SUV. Youre in total control except for the fact that you didnt fork out the money upfront to buy the car.

Plus, some of the features available with private clouds are just not an option with public clouds. Take BMITs load balancing service, for example, which was designed to counteract the pitfalls of high volumes of traffic, particularly when running multiple private cloud servers. Its an effective way of distributing this traffic and thus ensuring that no single device gets overloaded. As a result, devices run smoother and performances is improved all round with your devices as well as your business.

The hybrid cloud approach is the best of both worlds but why would a company need to take this route.

Think about it this way: if you adopt a hybrid model, you can use the private cloud features for particularly sensitive or classified data, or run your most mission-critical workloads through it, and use the public clouds for less pressing jobs or jobs were added scalability is required.

In addition, hybrid clouds are excellent when disaster recovery or cloud-bursting is needed. In other words, situations in which a company will need to very quickly transfer data or operation to another server, but cant afford to make use of multiple private cloud servers.

If youre running any sort of business that relies on data structures or web management of any kind, theres really no denying the asset that cloud computing can provide to your operation. For flexibility, customisability, and ease-of-use, theres nothing as flexible and scalable that will help you reach the standards expected today.

The fact that there are so many different faces to cloud computing might initially seem overwhelming, but really should be seen as an excellent way of ensuring that your company gets exactly what it needs to oversee the smooth running of its operation. Theres no better or worse here theres only whats right for you, so the idea shouldnt be to go for the most expensive option just for the sake of it.

Contact BMIT, Maltas largest multi-site data centre services provider, to find out how your business stands to benefit from the various cloud computing options available.

View post:
What cloud computing can offer you - Times of Malta

Google Has Declared Symantec Harmful To Internet Security – UPROXX

March 25, 2017 | Author: admin

Denis Linine / Shutterstock.com

Its rare Google outright goes to war on a company. Especially not a company as big and well-known as Symantec. But Google has done precisely that, in a move thats surprised the IT community and is about to make life miserable for a fair chunk of the internet.

Google has publicly said it no longer trusts the cryptographic certificates Symantec issues and that Chrome will view them as harmful. Think of a cryptographic certificate as the digital equivalent of getting carded at a bar. You encrypt whatever youre sending at your computer, and then use the certificate to encrypt it again. In order to read it, whoever youre sending it to needs both your private key, and the certificate they used. So if, say, a hacker has inserted himself between you and your banks website, he may have your private key, but once hes asked for the certificate, hes boned.

This isnt a minor issue; if the companies issuing these certificates get sloppy, there are enormous consequences. One Dutch company shut down after it came out it was issuing certificates to Iranian spies. And this has been an issue with Symantec since 2015 so the fact they havent bothered to clean up their act in two years, with millions of dollars at stake, is troubling. Google claims Symantec has issued 30,000 bad certificates.

The good news, if you run a website that issues these certificates, is that you can get new ones for free. But its unlikely most people will be aware of this problem, until it starts screwing up their sites.

(via Boing Boing)

Here is the original post:
Google Has Declared Symantec Harmful To Internet Security - UPROXX

What the Cloudbleed disaster says about the state of internet security – Information Age

March 25, 2017 | Author: admin

With data at the centre of every business decision, it should be a top priority of all organisations to invest in a cloud provider that can offer sophisticated methods of data protection and always puts data security at the top of its list

Last month, Cloudflare, a web content delivery network, revealed that a security bug had caused sensitive data to leak from its customers websites.

The security bug, or Cloudbleed, was found in a part of the Cloudflare system that powered vital security features.

The Cloudbleed contamination resulted in private information leaking into the code of other web pages in the Cloudflare network. The data exposed ranged from private messages and IP addresses to cookies and passwords and was activated as early as September 2016.

Data breaches, such as the Cloudbleed leak, highlight the fact that cloud computing, when executed improperly, can make data incredibly vulnerable. If organisations use a cloud provider that doesnt offer the highest levels of security, it can have catastrophic effects.

>See also:The security challenges with the Internet of Things

In the event that data is lost, stolen or contaminated with malicious software, it can cost businesses time, money and their reputation.

But despite these risks, cloud computing is a necessity in todays business environment as it affords companies the flexibility, scalability and mobility they need to provide customers with the best service possible.

However, to balance security with the opportunities that cloud brings, it is vital that companies find a cloud provider that utilises security features such as data encryption, two-factor authentication and sophisticated intrusion prevention and detection software.

As businesses develop their online presence by offering online portals or forums to customers and employees, it makes it easier for vulnerabilities in company data to be exploited.

Considering that passwords are constantly under threat from malware, it is vital that businesses opt for a cloud hosting provider that has measures in place to protect its data should a password be compromised.

Two-factor authentication is an extra layer of security that requires users to enter both a traditional password and provide a physical security token or biometric password such as a fingerprint or retina scan.

By enforcing a second method of authentication on any online portals or company login pages, business owners can have peace of mind that their data is safe.

By deploying a cloud strategy, businesses can share data easily and quickly. However, it is important that critical corporate data is protected at all times, both in situ and in transit.

Encrypted data requires a specific decryption key to transform the information into readable plaintext. This means that even if data is intercepted or reaches the wrong hands it cannot be read or exploited without the key.

>See also:The Trojan horse: 2017 cyber security trends

Data encryption gives businesses complete control over what information needs to be protected, who can view this information and how it should be accessed. This means the most vital data has the greatest level of protection at any given time without hindering the flexibility and mobility that businesses require.

Over the last year, malware attacks have increased in both frequency and sophistication. According to research by the US government, in 2016, over 4,000 ransomware attacks were recorded on a daily basis. This represents a 300% increase in the number of daily attacks from the previous year.

In order to combat this growing issue, many companies invest money in security solutions that only create a perimeter fence around the most important data. Instead of continuously re-building these security perimeters, businesses should focus on implementing a network that can offer real-time threat awareness and continuous vulnerability discovery.

>See also:Busting the 7 myths of cyber security

To successfully provide this robust network, businesses must invest in a cloud provider that treats security as a business management problem. By using a provider that measures threat awareness at all times and operates an integrated prevention system, businesses can be certain that their data is constantly being monitored and protected against malware threats.

It is clear that data security should be a key part of any businesses IT strategy. Whether a business stores its data fully or partially in the cloud, events such as the Cloudbleed leak show just how important is it to choose a cloud provider that is trustworthy.

Sourced by Jake Madders, director at Hyve Managed Hosting

The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy – Washington Post

March 25, 2017 | Author: admin

On March 23 the Senate voted to repeal FCC rules that protect consumers' online data from their Internet providers. The vote now heads to the House. (Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)

Senate lawmakers voted Thursday torepeal a historic set of rules aimed at protecting consumers' online data from their own Internet providers, in a move that could make it easier for broadband companies to sell and share their customers' usage information for advertising purposes.

The rules, which prohibit providers from abusing the data they gatheron their customers as they browse the Web on cellphones and computers, were approved last year over objections from Republicans who argued the regulations went too far.

U.S. senators voted 50 to 48 to approve a joint resolution from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would preventthe Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules from going into effect. The resolution also would bar the FCC from ever enacting similar consumer protections. It now heads to the House.

[How a single Internet provider could end up making money off you several times over]

Industry groups welcomed the vote.

Our industry remains committed to offering services that protect the privacy and security of the personal information of our customers, said NCTA The Internet and Television Association, a trade group representing major cable providers. We support this step toward reversing the FCCs misguided approach and look forward to restoring a consistent approach to online privacy protection that consumers want and deserve.

Consumer and privacy groups condemned the resolution.

It is extremely disappointing that the Senate voted today to sacrifice the privacy rights of Americans in the interest of protecting the profits of major Internet companies, including Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, Neema Singh Giuliani, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The FCC didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The agency'srules are being debated as Internet providers no longer satisfiedwith simply offering Web access race to become online advertising giants as large as Google and Facebook. To deliver consumers from one website to another, Internet providers must see and understand which online destinations their customers wish to visit, whether that's Netflix, WebMD or PornHub.

With that data, Internet providers would like tosell targeted advertising or even share that informationwith third-party marketers. But the FCC's regulations place certain limits on the type of data Internet providers can share and under what circumstances. Under the rules, consumers may forbid their providers from sharing what the FCC deems sensitive information, such as app usage history and mobile location data.

Opponents of the regulation argue the FCC's definition of sensitive information is far too broad and that it creates an imbalance between what's expected of Internet providers and what's allowed for Web companies such as Google. Separately from Congress, critics of the measure have petitionedthe FCC to reconsider letting the rules go into effect, and the agency's new Republican leadership has partly complied. In February, President Trump's FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, put a hold on a slice of the rules that would have forced Internet providers to better safeguard their customer data from hackers.

The congressional resolution could render unnecessary any further action by the FCC to review the rules; Flake's measure aims to nullifythe FCC's privacy rules altogether. Republicans argue that even if the FCC's power to make rules on Internet privacy is curtailed, state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could still hold Internet providers accountable for future privacy abuses.

But Democrats saythat preemptive rules arenecessary to protect consumers before their information gets out against their will.

At a time when our personal data is more vulnerable than ever, its baffling that Senate Republicans would eliminate the few privacy protections Americans have today, said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Pallone added in a statement Thursday that he hoped his House Republican colleagues will exercise better judgment when it becomes their turn to vote on the resolution.

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats challenged the idea that the FTC could take responsibility for regulating Internet providers' privacy practices.

The Federal Trade Commission does not have the rulemaking authority in data security, even though commissioners at the FTC have asked Congress for such authority in the past, said Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee.

See the article here:
The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy - Washington Post

Comey Renews Debate Over Encryption – 550 KTSA

March 25, 2017 | Author: admin

The FBI Director renews the debate over encryption during a stop at the University of Texas.

Its a debate that has been going on in the aftermath of the San Bernardino Terror Attackwith the feds trying to break the encryption around the phone used by one of the terrorists.

Apple took its case against cooperating with those efforts to the publicafter federal authorities got the courts involved in the fight.

Look one of the worlds I can imagine I dont know whether this makes sense a requirement that if youre going to sell a device or market a device in the United States, you must be able to comply with judicial process you figure out how to do it Comey said Thursday Morning, admitting his interests are a bit different than those of companies looking to sell products and win shares of the market.

As those devices become off limits to judicial authoritythats a change in the way we live Comey said.

My job is to worry about public safety. Their job is to worry about innovating and selling more units I totally get that Comey said.

The FBI Director said its not for himor for companies to decide unilaterally what the process and proper standards should bebut said it is a discussion we need to haveand a question we need to answersooner rather than later.

We cant have this conversation after something really bad happens Comey said.

More here:
Comey Renews Debate Over Encryption - 550 KTSA

Encryption debate needs to be nuanced, says FBI’s Comey – TechTarget

March 25, 2017 | Author: admin

SC Magazine

Encryption debate needs to be nuanced, says FBI's Comey
TechTarget
FBI Director James Comey brought the encryption debate back to the forefront by asking for a 'nuanced and thoughtful' conversation on the topic before there is ...
FBI Director Comey advocates for weakening of securitySC Magazine

all 4 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
Encryption debate needs to be nuanced, says FBI's Comey - TechTarget

Why the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF May Not Be Dead Yet – Fortune

March 25, 2017 | Author: admin

The bitcoin ETF may still rise.

After a March 10 Securities and Exchange Commission ruling that nixed an official exchange-traded fund for bitcoin , many saw the issue as settled. But Bats BZX Exchange, which would have listed the ETF on its exchange, has revealed it will appeal the SECs decision.

The SEC turned down the ETF earlier this month because the online exchanges that bitcoin is traded on are not regulated, and therefore susceptible to fraud and other manipulation. (Read: Everything You Need to Know About the Bitcoin ETF.) Had the ETF been approved, it would have tracked the price of bitcoin and made buying and selling them as simple as a stock transaction.

The ETF, known as the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust, was created by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who were made famous (and quite rich) thanks to their lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg over their involvement in Facebooks creation . The two brothers have been trying for years to bring bitcoin to the mainstream, and the failure to get approval for their ETF is a big blow to that cause.

Although bitcoin has been around since 2009, it didnt really become part of public consciousness until 2013, at which point its value skyrocketed from around $140 in late October of that year to more than $1,100 a month later, according to Coin Desk. But almost as fast as the price shot up, it crashed back down. Since then, it has taken more than three years for bitcoins price to make it back to the $1,100 mark, finally reaching it in January.

One bitcoin currently trades for $1,047, down from $1,258 before the SECs ruling. Large price swings in short time frames like that have happened frequently in bitcoins past, and that volatility was another reason the SEC declined to accept the Winklevoss ETF. Unlike other currencies such as the U.S. dollar or the Euro, whose values change incrementally and in a fairly predictable fashion, price fluctuations in bitcoin can be absolutely monstrous and it isnt always obvious what is making the price move.

One thing to note is that even though Bats will appeal the decision, there is no guarantee that the SEC even has to act on it in any way, let alone actually reconsider its choice. But if the ETF is approved, it would likely move bitcoin from being seen as a curiosity on Wall Street to being something investors see as worth legitimate attention for the first time.

Excerpt from:
Why the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF May Not Be Dead Yet - Fortune

Bitcoin (BTC) is tearing itself apart again, and its price is yo-yoing … – Quartz

March 25, 2017 | Author: admin

It is not uncommon for a new technology still finding its footing to undergo periods of tumultwitness the long ago war over videotape formats VHS and Betamax.

Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency growing in popularity, turns out to be no different. For the last several years, technical experts have been arguing over how to adapt the currencys software to allow it to handle more transactions and meet the increased demand. The debate has recently become so heated that it threatens to throw bitcoin itself into chaos, a phenomenon most clearly seen in the recent plunge in bitcoins price.

The conflict threatens to fork bitcoin, splitting it in two. Each branch would run a different version of the cryptocurrencys software. Bitcoins principal innovation has been its blockchain, an immutable ledger of all the transactions ever performed with the cryptocurrency. A fork would generate two versions of the ledger, creating practical problems, like coins that could vanish, and philosophical ones, like agreeing on which blockchain represents the one, true, bitcoin.

The tension reached a fever pitch last week when bitcoins top exchanges (with some notable exceptions, such as Coinbase) issued a joint statement explaining how they would deal with the split, called a hard fork. This acknowledgement of the very real possibility of a fork sent bitcoin traders scrambling to sell their holdings. Bitcoin fell 24% over two days, from March 16, though it has recovered significantly.

Both camps have doubled down on their positions, and the saber rattling is growing louder. There is talk of of changing the proof-of-work algorithm that bitcoin runs on, which could render the bitcoin mining industry, which earns millions a day in revenue, useless in one fell swoop. Minerswho process transactions and also increase the total supply of bitcoin in circulationare now threatening legal action against developers who are working on such a proposal. Theres also a widely circulated conspiracy theory that involves John McAfee, the anti-virus entrepreneur whos embroiled in a murder case in Belize. McAfee is supposedly colluding with a powerful Chinese miner to force a fork.

The bickering over the right way to grow bitcoins transaction capacity is known as the block size debate. It has been raging for years. Last January it claimed a famous victim: longtime Core developer Mike Hearn, who quit the bitcoin world dramatically (paywall) because of the block size impasse. As if on cue, Hearns departure was dismissed as a whiny ragequit and the battle continued.

The squabble over block size has divided the bitcoin world into the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited camps. The Core group, trading under the current BTC ticker, wants to solve the transaction problem by implementing a clever workaround called Segregated Witness, or SegWit, that will effectively increase the block size from the current 1 megabyte to 2 megabytes. The 1 MB restriction was an arbitrary limit put in place by bitcoins creator, Satoshi Nakamoto; some speculate it was to ensure that the bitcoin blockchain could be easily downloaded by users, and thus encourage adoption. In any case, it was a problem to be dealt with only if bitcoin succeeded.

The Bitcoin Unlimited camp, which would trade under a new ticker symbol BCU, wants to remove any restriction on block size and thus transaction capacity. But that would force a hard fork and two bitcoins would then inhabit the Earth. The Unlimited camp is backed by Roger Ver, an early bitcoin adopter whose relentless evangelizing for the cryptocurrency earned him the moniker Bitcoin Jesus. Unlimited is also backed by major miners, and part of its pitch is that miners should decide on block sizes. It proposes to do this by letting miners set their own caps for blocks, reasoning that eventually, miners will come to an agreement about what the optimal block size should be.

Supporters of Core argue that the Unlimited code is riddled with bugs. Indeed, last week a bug was exploited, sending 70% of Unlimited nodes offline thus reducing the amount of processing power devoted to implementing it.

But Core is making a larger, philosophical point, about who controls the bitcoin network. They dont like the idea of miners setting block sizes because they believe it increases centralization of bitcoin. Without a block size cap, powerful miners can simply mine bigger blocks, and thus be responsible for larger chunks of the bitcoin network, entrenching themselves further.

Theres also a struggle about bitcoins function. As Adam White, who runs the GDAX exchange, tells Forbes, the Core camp wants to treat bitcoin as digital gold: a finite resource whose fundamental properties cant be changed. The Unlimited folks want bitcoin to be digital cash, with limitless transaction capacity so that everyday payments can be recorded on the blockchain. Vinny Lingham, a noted analyst of the bitcoin industry, observes: Roger [Ver] wants cheap coffee transactions, Core wants to ensure [bitcoin is] sufficiently decentralized and secure.

Still, bitcoins blocks are getting filled up, meaning transactions cant be processed quickly enoughhence the urgency for a solution. Critics say that Core developers proposal for a 2 MB block size, SegWit, simply delays the inevitablea hard forkbecause it doesnt raise the cap enough. A solution to Satoshis block size limit can no longer be avoided.

So whos winning? One exchange has opened what is effectively a prediction market for a hard fork. It lets traders buy tokens representing the adoption of either Core or Unlimited. If Unlimited isnt adopted, and a fork doesnt occur, Unlimited tokens become worthless. By this measure Core is winning: tokens representing its adoption are worth four times the Unlimited tokens.

But Unlimited is gaining ground among miners. About 40% of the processing power, or hashrate, on the bitcoin network supports Unlimited, compared to 60% supporting Core, according to analytics site Coin Dance. And the gap is rapidly closing.

The picture isnt as simple as whos got more hashing power. In order for Cores SegWit proposal to be adopted, 95% of hashing power must be devoted to it, according to a threshold set by its developers. Unlimited doesnt have a fixed threshold. Instead, it relies on a rather circular logic: It can only be adopted if miners decide to admit blocks larger than the current 1 MB, but miners would only have an incentive to so if other miners did the same. Its kind of like people getting together to cross a road. Everyone holds hands and then someone decides to cross and everybody crosses with it, one Redditor explained.

A hard fork isnt unprecedented for a major cryptocurrency. Ethereum experienced this after a hack, birthing whats now known as ethereum classic. The fork also arose from ideological disagreements: The solution to the hack was to undo some transactions, which struck some ethereum users as an unprincipled move. A blockchains immutability is one of the pillars of the cryptocurrency world. Today the two coexist; there is even a publicly traded ethereum classic fund for the over-the-counter markets, although the value of all ethereum in circulation is about 18 times greater than ethereum classic.

But ethereum is a lot younger than bitcoin; it was only a year old when it split. The value of all ethereum in circulation is about a quarter of bitcoins current $17 billion value. A messy hard fork for bitcoin could mean serious disruptions for miners, who operate industrial-scale facilities, the well-funded exchanges, and the myriad startups who have raised $1.5 billion in venture capital collectively since 2012. A lot is riding on the question of how to scale bitcoin, and the conflict is showing no signs of easing up.

Read this next: Bitcoin might just be a plausible response to the war on cash declared by governments around the world

See the rest here:
Bitcoin (BTC) is tearing itself apart again, and its price is yo-yoing ... - Quartz

Cloud Hosting

BitGo Reveals Hard Fork Planning; Will Not Support Bitcoin Unlimited – CryptoCoinsNews

BitFury Mines a Block Signalling The SegWit User-activated Soft Fork – The Merkle

What cloud computing can offer you – Times of Malta

Google Has Declared Symantec Harmful To Internet Security – UPROXX

What the Cloudbleed disaster says about the state of internet security – Information Age

The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy – Washington Post

Comey Renews Debate Over Encryption – 550 KTSA

Encryption debate needs to be nuanced, says FBI’s Comey – TechTarget

Why the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF May Not Be Dead Yet – Fortune

Bitcoin (BTC) is tearing itself apart again, and its price is yo-yoing … – Quartz

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Media Sites

Pages

Site admin