Does bitcoin Ethereum know

2.

The user groups of Ethernet and bitcoin are different

3. Bitcoin and Ethereum are both digital currencies. Bitcoin ranks first in market value, followed by Ethereum. After registering with the bitnet exchange, you can invest in them.

4. All of them are deceiving. Many people have been cheated. Don't believe them. There is no free lunch, and there will be no pie in the sky

5. Now it's March 2021. I'll answer you. What are bitcoin and Ethereum? These two are the virtual money that grabs money and the new things that drive the nationwide mining tide. Bitcoin is now 1 = 350000 RMB. In this way, Ethereum is 1 = 11000 RMB, and its value is rising. I regret that I just heard about bitcoin when I was studying in 2008, but it's only 20 yuan, I didn't buy a 200 yuan plug-in. Now it's worth millions of money with me.

6. Bitcoin and Ethereum are both digital currencies. Bitcoin ranks first in market value, followed by Ethereum.

7. From the perspective of currency, bitcoin is a real monetary system, with a fixed total amount (21 million), while ether coin is not fixed from the perspective of currency, and can be issued as needed, so there is no upper limit for ether coin. Bitcoin will continue to deflate in the long run, while ether, like the current legal currency system, will continue to inflate. So from the perspective of cryptocurrency itself, bitcoin will continue to increase in value, while ether may not (mainly depending on its circulation).

8. It's no different from stocks. Just change the name. Buy low and sell high! Of course, you can also buy or drop, which is different from a shares

I hoard a lot of bitcoin in bitoffer, and the rate is low

9. Core developer Mike Hearn: why bitcoin should be forked
2015-08-17 09:17:38 Views: key words: Mike

related reading: Mike Hearn: internal contradictions in the enterprise prevent Google from accepting bitcoin

Yes, it's coming. The community is beginning to separate, and bitcoin is about to bifurcate: including software, and perhaps blockchain. The two sides of the split are bitcoin core and the micro variant program based on the same program, called bitcoin XT. On August 16, Beijing time, there is now a full version of bitcoin XT

this bifurcation has never happened before. I want to explain this from the perspective of bitcoin XT developers: it can't be said that it hasn't been communicated enough

bitcoin bifurcation, this topic may make many people curious, so this article is written for ordinary readers. It doesn't involve the knowledge that has been debated before

the original version of bitcoin was carefully arranged by Nakamoto, and has always been very clear. The debate is about growth. In 2008, he answered the first question about the design of bitcoin, saying:

visa processed 37 billion transactions in fiscal year 2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. So many deals require 100GB of bandwidth = 12 DVDs or 2 HD quality movies = about $18 of bandwidth at the current price

assuming that the bitcoin network reaches this scale, it will take several years. By then, sending two HD movies over the Internet may not be a big deal

at that time, he was more tired of bitcoin expansion than any of us. His plan is to make bitcoin popular from the beginning, and he knows that this success will change how people use his system. In 2010, he said, "it's good that we keep [blockchain] files as small as possible

the final solution will not care how big it (blockchain file) becomes

but now, while it is still small, keep it in a small state, and the growth of new users will be faster. When I finally implement client only mode, it's no longer a problem
"
in 2011, through a series of calculations, I expanded the expansion intuition of Nakamoto in detail: if bitcoin becomes so popular, will it completely replace visa? The answer is that his plan is credible - you don't need anything else but a computer, even if there's so much traffic. Before he left, I also implemented the model he talked about

it was Nakamoto's plan that brought us together. It has changed the lives of thousands of people around the world. Some of us give up our jobs, others devote their spare time to the project, others set up companies and even travel around the world. This is an idea that ordinary people can complete mutual payment through blockchain and create this global community

that's the vision I signed, and that's the vision Gavin Andresen signed, and that's the vision signed by millions of developers, founders of startups, evangelists, and users around the world

and this vision is now in danger. In recent months, it's clear that a small group of people have completely different plans for bitcoin. These people have never really understood Nakamoto's intention because they are worried about success, if the technology has never been improved, if people can't run bitcoin on their home computers? Doesn't this make bitcoin move away from centralization and more like banking? What if people start to rely on bitcoin, even if it's imperfect

now, Nakamoto has chosen to disappear, and they want to make a major change: substantially increase transaction costs, end support for mobile P2P wallets, give up unconfirmed transactions, and many things that have never been found in the project's founding documents

the so-called lightning network, which is about to be promoted as a substitute for Nakamoto's design, does not exist. The white paper describes that it was announced earlier this year, and if it can be realized, it will be a huge departure from the bitcoin we know and love. Pick one of the many differences, and a bitcoin address won't work. What they will be replaced with has not yet been worked out (because no one knows). There are many other surprising pitfalls that I mentioned in another article. What will it eventually proce to make our existing bitcoin network better? It is still extremely unclear

what happened to the free market

in theory, none of this should be a problem. Lightning network is built on the blockchain, but it needs a rather trivial upgrade process to achieve the best function. Of course, people are willing to explore this direction, which is entirely possible. If the jobs they set up are better than the existing ordinary bitcoin network, then the market will choose their way, if so... It is fair competition for them! The current design of bitcoin is unlikely to be the final version for payment. This is a reasonable imagination, one day it will be eliminated in the competition, or enhanced by something else

but our system is working today. It has an ecosystem, including developers, exchanges, wallets, ATMs, books, applications, conferences, and many people have learned how it works

if there was a free choice, would people decide to move to a completely different system

we don't know, but the people who are pushing these things don't want the market to make a decision. That's what happened

a long time ago, Nakamoto set up a temporary "mixed brand assembly computer": he limited the size of each block to 1 MB. He did so in order to keep the blockchain in a small state in the early days, until we now call it the creation of SPV wallet (that is, what Nakamoto calls "client only mode"). As mentioned above, when the time comes, it can be adjusted. It has never been said that it is permanent. In the end, it becomes irrelevant. In 2011, I wrote the first SPV tool with my respected colleague Andreas schildbach, and we built the first and most popular Android wallet together. Since then, SPV wallets have been used on major platforms. Therefore, Nakamoto's reasons for this temporary restriction have been solved a long time ago

with the continuous growth of bitcoin, its blocks are also growing. Reasonable traffic forecasts show that the block will reach the current system limit sometime next year, at the latest in 2017. Another bubble or pressure cycle will force us to exceed that limit before, and the result may not be beautiful.

so it's time to raise the upper limit, or delete it completely. That's our plan, and the problem starts: those who don't want to see bitcoin expand have decided to postpone the process. They saw a beautiful, one-time opportunity to forcibly transfer bitcoin's predetermined path to a completely different technological trajectory. They don't know what this alternative design will be, and of course they haven't built it yet. But it doesn't matter. They believe that by blocking the growth of the blockchain, they can "motivate" (that is, force) the bitcoin community to switch to different things, something more in line with their personal technical taste

why restrict blockchain

so far, I haven't explained much about these people or who they are. I think it's a very time-consuming and laborious thing to name names in this article, and it seems to be futile in the end. Presumably those who care about this matter already know it, and those who don't know it can't recognize the people who are involved in it

I just want to say that they are very few people who have access to the bitcoin core code base, or those who are convinced by their arguments

therefore, we will not discuss these arguments here, which has been too much. Gavin and I have written articles to analyze the questions raised by everyone to refute them. Sometimes the answer is some common sense, some will be more in-depth, need more work, such as network simulation

the best place to understand these controversies is in Gavin's blog. I hope to find a link to a collection of opinions similar to those refuting Gavin's point of view, but none of them

to sum up, in the long and hard debate, several different opposition groups:

if bitcoin approaches this limit, we will be stimulated to create something better
the limit should be raised, but it is not ready (the actual time is not specified)
if bitcoin is expanded and becomes more centralized, it will no longer be bitcoin< Other people: if the objections you support are not listed above, please check Gavin's blog and find out the answer

the first point may become a reality one day, but it is not comparable with the theoretical system on paper. But no one who has seen any alternative solutions on the table thinks they can be implemented within 12 months (see another example in the last paragraph, for example)... Even assuming they are better. This is also an example of the nirvana fallacy:

the nirvana fallacy refers to the name of the informal fallacy of some unrealistic and idealized substitutes for something more practical. It can also refer to the tendency to think that there is a perfect solution to a specific problem, so it is also called perfectionism fallacy
it's obviously advantageous to create an imitative dichotomy for a current choice. But it's also totally incredible. One who uses the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. According to this fallacy, the choice is not between real-world solutions. One is a realistic solution, and the other is an impractical solution, which is the "better" choice between the two

the answer to the second objection is too vague. It is reasonable to believe that the overall upgrade of each bitcoin node may take one year, and the actual bitcoin network capacity overload will cause serious damage. We really should be ready before that. In the bitcoin development mailing list, there are two people who have professional capacity planning experience, and both of them have

10. Bitcoin was born ten years ago, and countless people asked this question in the past ten years. In the past ten years, its price has risen 100000 times
do you think he is a hoax?