BIPs BTCMANAGER

B ONE PAYMENT #BIP #TOKENSALE #IEO SECOND ROUND IEO Price: 0.00002 BTC for 1 B1P until March 1th IEO BUY AT: https://www.finexbox.com/market/pair/B1P-BTC.html #ieo #ico #crypto #cryptocurrency #blockchain #bitcoin #ethereum #btc #eth #altcoins #cryptonews

submitted by LeahCrypto38 to Crypto_General [link] [comments]

Sick of the price threads? - [bitcoin-dev] Two Drivechain BIPs

This was already submitted but amidst the price posts it may have never received proper attention.
Direct Link.
Modified:
Hello,
First, Drivechain has vaguely escaped vaporware status. If you've ever thought "I'd like to take a look into Drivechain when there is code", then now is a pretty good time. (Unfinished items include M1, and M8_V2.)
https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/mainchainBMM
Also,
Site: http://www.drivechain.info/
Blank sidechain: https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/sidechainBMM
Second, I think drivechain's documentation / BIP-Drafts are tolerably readable.
Here they are:
  1. https://github.com/drivechain-project/docs/blob/mastebip1-hashrate-escrow.md
  2. https://github.com/drivechain-project/docs/blob/mastebip2-blind-merged-mining.md
cc: luke-jr , I think they are ready to be assigned formal BIP Numbers.
This is also a request for code review. The most helpful review will probably take place on GitHub.
Regular review is also welcome. Although, please read our recently-updated FAQ, at: http://www.drivechain.info/faq .
And also see major earlier discussions:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014364.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014559.html
Have a nice weekend everyone,
Paul

Hashrate Escrow

Abstract

A "Hashrate Escrow" is a clearer term for the concept of "locked to an SPV Proof", which is itself a restatement of the phrase "within a sidechain" as described in a famous Oct 2014 paper written partially by some Blockstream co-founders.
The concept resembles a 2-of-3 multisig escrow, where the 3rd party (who will arbitrate any disputes) is the set of Bitcoin Miners. However, miners do not sign the transaction with a private key. Instead, they sign it by directing hashpower over it for a period of time.
This project has a website which includes a FAQ.

Motivation

In practice these escrows are likely to be "asymmetric sidechains" of Bitcoin (such as Rootstock) or "virtual chains" within Bitcoin (such as proposed by Blockstack in mid-2016).
Sidechains have potential benefits, including:
  1. Protect Bitcoin from competition from altcoins and spinoffs. Safely allow competing implementations (of sidechains).
  2. Protect Bitcoin from hard fork campaigns. (Such campaigns represent an existential threat to Bitcoin, as well as an avenue for developer corruption.)
  3. Help with review, by making it must easier for reviewers to ignore bad ideas.
  4. Provide an avenue for good-but-confusing ideas to prove their value safely.

Blind Merged Mining

Abstract

Blind Merged Mining (BMM) is a way of mining special extension blocks, ie "sidechains". It produces strong guarantees that the block is valid, for any arbitrary set of rules; and yet it does so without requiring miners to actually do any validation on the block whatsoever.
BMM actually is a process that spans two or more chains. For an explanation of the "whole picture", please see this post. Here we focus on the modifications to mainchain Bitcoin.
To support BMM, the mainchain is asked to accomplish two goals:
  1. Track a set of ordered hashes (the merged-mining).
  2. Allow miners to "sell" the act of finding a sidechain block (through the use of a new extended serialization transaction type). These goals are accomplished by forcing nodes to validate two new messages (M7, M8), and track data in one new database (D3).

Motivation

Regular "Merged-Mining" (MM) allows miners to reuse their hashing work to secure other chains (for example, as in Namecoin). However, traditional MM has two drawbacks:
  1. Miners must run a full node of the other chain. (This is because [while miners can effortlessly create the block] miners will not create a valid payment to themselves, unless the block that they MM is a valid one. Therefore, miners must assemble a valid block first, then MM it.)
  2. Miners are paid on the other chain, not on the regular BTC mainchain. For example, miners who MM Namecoin will earn NMC (and they will need to sell the NMC for BTC, before selling the BTC in order to pay for electricity). Blind Merged-Mining (BMM) attempts to address those shortcomings.
submitted by StopAndDecrypt to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply submitted by coincrypto to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Price Climbs past $2860 twice this week; BIP 91 Fully Locked In – SegWit Activation

Bitcoin Price Climbs past $2860 twice this week; BIP 91 Fully Locked In – SegWit Activation submitted by kuroashi123 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Sick of the price threads? - [bitcoin-dev] Two Drivechain BIPs

The following post by StopAndDecrypt 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/7gyvru
The original post's content was as follows:
This was already submitted but amidst the price posts it may have never received proper attention.
Direct Link.
Modified:
Hello,
First, Drivechain has vaguely escaped vaporware status. If you've ever thought "I'd like to take a look into Drivechain when there is code", then now is a pretty good time. (Unfinished items include M1, and M8_V2.)
https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/mainchainBMM
Also,
Site: http://www.drivechain.info/
Blank sidechain: https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/sidechainBMM
Second, I think drivechain's documentation / BIP-Drafts are tolerably readable.
Here they are:
  1. https://github.com/drivechain-project/docs/blob/mastebip1-hashrate-escrow.md
  2. https://github.com/drivechain-project/docs/blob/mastebip2-blind-merged-mining.md
cc: luke-jr , I think they are ready to be assigned formal BIP Numbers.
This is also a request for code review. The most helpful review will probably take place on GitHub.
Regular review is also welcome. Although, please read our recently-updated FAQ, at: http://www.drivechain.info/faq .
And also see major earlier discussions:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014364.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014559.html
Have a nice weekend everyone,
Paul

Hashrate Escrow

Abstract

A "Hashrate Escrow" is a clearer term for the concept of "locked to an SPV Proof", which is itself a restatement of the phrase "within a sidechain" as described in a famous Oct 2014 paper written partially by some Blockstream co-founders.
The concept resembles a 2-of-3 multisig escrow, where the 3rd party (who will arbitrate any disputes) is the set of Bitcoin Miners. However, miners do not sign the transaction with a private key. Instead, they sign it by directing hashpower over it for a period of time.
This project has a website which includes a FAQ.

Motivation

In practice these escrows are likely to be "asymmetric sidechains" of Bitcoin (such as Rootstock) or "virtual chains" within Bitcoin (such as proposed by Blockstack in mid-2016).
Sidechains have potential benefits, including:
  1. Protect Bitcoin from competition from altcoins and spinoffs. Safely allow competing implementations (of sidechains).
  2. Protect Bitcoin from hard fork campaigns. (Such campaigns represent an existential threat to Bitcoin, as well as an avenue for developer corruption.)
  3. Help with review, by making it must easier for reviewers to ignore bad ideas.
  4. Provide an avenue for good-but-confusing ideas to prove their value safely.

Blind Merged Mining

Abstract

Blind Merged Mining (BMM) is a way of mining special extension blocks, ie "sidechains". It produces strong guarantees that the block is valid, for any arbitrary set of rules; and yet it does so without requiring miners to actually do any validation on the block whatsoever.
BMM actually is a process that spans two or more chains. For an explanation of the "whole picture", please see this post. Here we focus on the modifications to mainchain Bitcoin.
To support BMM, the mainchain is asked to accomplish two goals:
  1. Track a set of ordered hashes (the merged-mining).
  2. Allow miners to "sell" the act of finding a sidechain block (through the use of a new extended serialization transaction type). These goals are accomplished by forcing nodes to validate two new messages (M7, M8), and track data in one new database (D3).

Motivation

Regular "Merged-Mining" (MM) allows miners to reuse their hashing work to secure other chains (for example, as in Namecoin). However, traditional MM has two drawbacks:
  1. Miners must run a full node of the other chain. (This is because [while miners can effortlessly create the block] miners will not create a valid payment to themselves, unless the block that they MM is a valid one. Therefore, miners must assemble a valid block first, then MM it.)
  2. Miners are paid on the other chain, not on the regular BTC mainchain. For example, miners who MM Namecoin will earn NMC (and they will need to sell the NMC for BTC, before selling the BTC in order to pay for electricity). Blind Merged-Mining (BMM) attempts to address those shortcomings.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply submitted by coincrypto to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Sick of the price threads? - [bitcoin-dev] Two Drivechain BIPs /r/Bitcoin

Sick of the price threads? - [bitcoin-dev] Two Drivechain BIPs /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Press • [2017-07-21]BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply

submitted by btcforumbot to BtcForum [link] [comments]

"3 BIPs for MAST were co-released last night and not a single "big name" from any side of the #Bitcoin debate publicly acknowledged it." One thread was made and it garnered almost no traction. Can we forget the price talk for a moment?

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Price Climbs past $2860 twice this week; BIP 91 Fully Locked In SegWit Activation

Bitcoin Price Climbs past $2860 twice this week; BIP 91 Fully Locked In SegWit Activation submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply submitted by coincrypto to btc [link] [comments]

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply /r/BitcoinMarkets

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply /BitcoinMarkets submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply

The Bitcoin price rose sharply after Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 91 (BIP 91) was locked in yesterday (20 July) evening. Read the full article: https://coinidol.com/bip-91-locks-in-and-bitcoin-price-rises-sharply/
submitted by coincrypto to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply

BIP 91 Locks In and Bitcoin Price Rises Sharply submitted by coincrypto to btc [link] [comments]

BIP 148 chain price may be less than legacy chain, but that's fine /r/Bitcoin

BIP 148 chain price may be less than legacy chain, but that's fine /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Current status of Schnorr + Taproot? Just learned about them and am pumped at these improvements!

Hey guys, I have been listening to some podcasts so I can wrap my head around Schnorr and Taproot, and was extremely impressed at the improvements they make, WOW, I didn't realize how HUGE an improvement this is going to be, it's probably just as big an upgrade as Segwit. That it improves not just privacy, but also efficiency, which should help transaction fees once it catches on (I hear that multisig is used quite a lot). Also it's awesome to know it should help to mask Coinjoins (if I am understanding correctly), that should also make far less cases of exchanges randomly flagging and freezing some poor innocent guy's money + increased use of Coinjoin. There was also some nice improvement to Lightning, but that part seemed to go over my head. Bitcoin Audible podcast #226 really explained things well, as well as a few others like Pomp's podcast.
Anyway, what's not so clear to me is the current status of these improvements. I read that the BIP has been altered several times, is that where we are at currently, the exact contents of the BIP being finalized? I heard there was also some debate about the best way to vote on such a thing, has that been decided yet? I did a search but didn't come up with much.
It seems to me that unlike some other more contested proposals, this one is pretty universally praised, I have scarcely seen even a forum post arguing against it.
Instead of worrying about price so much, I think we would be better served to have some kind of sticky post along with regular status updates on the progress of this.
Anyway, any info is appreciated, thanks guys.
EDIT: Thank you for the gold. Hopefully we can get more of these conversations going in the sub, that is my goal. Cheers.
submitted by Franko00 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Coinbase to sponsor two Bitcoin Core developers with community fund grant

Link to AMB Crypto: https://eng.ambcrypto.com/coinbase-to-sponsor-two-bitcoin-core-developers-with-community-fund-grant/
Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase announced today that it would sponsor at least two Bitcoin developers, who contribute directly to the Bitcoin Core codebase or closely associated Bitcoin projects, through the exchange’s new grants dubbed Crypto Community Fund. Coinbase said it would make the final selections after current Bitcoin Core developers and “important” community members shortlist the proposals.
The advisory board for the bitcoin projects includes developers like Carla Kirk-Cohen, Anthony Towns, Amiti Uttarwar, Felix Weis, and Dan Boneh. Coinbase said projects hailing from any location could apply and while it aimed to focus on year-long developer grants, it would also consider shorter projects. Coinbase intended to expand the program to other types of projects and crypto communities if this Fund successfully helped the crypto community.
Meanwhile, the crypto community at large, including Square’s Jack Dorsey, welcomed the move. Others saw this as a way to “give back to the coin [bitcoin] that started this industry.” In fact, Coinbase cited how the Bitcoin project, which launched without a fundraise, and kickstarted the industry, had inspired them to help the entire crypto industry “grow and improve.”
However, the exchange noted that this “open source community” did in fact provide “critical support” for Bitcoin development, and how various institutions had donated to maintain the Bitcoin ecosystem. Coinbase further illustrated the types of projects it sought to support such as:
Direct contributions to Bitcoin Core that improve testing, fuzzing, bug fixes as well as Significant code and Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) review. Contributor tooling like the open-source bitcoinacks.com and Bitcoin Core libraries and tools were among other project types Coinbase wanted to fund.
Bitcoin price today is $11,562.58, at the time of writing, with BTC prices up by 1.5% in the last 24 hours.
submitted by BlockDotCo to u/BlockDotCo [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Current status of Schnorr + Taproot? Just learned about them and am pumped at these improvements!

Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by Franko00 [link]
Hey guys, I have been listening to some podcasts so I can wrap my head around Schnorr and Taproot, and was extremely impressed at the improvements they make, WOW, I didn't realize how HUGE an improvement this is going to be, it's probably just as big an upgrade as Segwit. That it improves not just privacy, but also efficiency, which should help transaction fees once it catches on (I hear that multisig is used quite a lot). Also it's awesome to know it should help to mask Coinjoins (if I am understanding correctly), that should also make far less cases of exchanges randomly flagging and freezing some poor innocent guy's money + increased use of Coinjoin. There was also some nice improvement to Lightning, but that part seemed to go over my head. Bitcoin Audible podcast #226 really explained things well, as well as a few others like Pomp's podcast.
Anyway, what's not so clear to me is the current status of these improvements. I read that the BIP has been altered several times, is that where we are at currently, the exact contents of the BIP being finalized? I heard there was also some debate about the best way to vote on such a thing, has that been decided yet? I did a search but didn't come up with much.
It seems to me that unlike some other more contested proposals, this one is pretty universally praised, I have scarcely seen even a forum post arguing against it.
Instead of worrying about price so much, I think we would be better served to have some kind of sticky post along with regular status updates on the progress of this.
Anyway, any info is appreciated, thanks guys.
Franko00 your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by almkglor [link]
This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given private key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

almkglor your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Taproot and Schnorr Are Now Formal Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), Will Enhance the Privacy, Security, and Capabilities of Bitcoin

Taproot and Schnorr Are Now Formal Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), Will Enhance the Privacy, Security, and Capabilities of Bitcoin submitted by turtlecane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Random idea: USL, but for Bitcoin addresses

This is my rough idea for a Bitcoin change that would allow for a bit more fraud protection. I might write up a BIP later if I get around to actually nailing it down.
For those unaware, the Universal Scammer List (USL) is a page dedicated to keeping track of the usernames of scammers on Reddit. Basically, if you want to conduct a transaction with someone on Reddit, you should first check if they're listed as a known scammer.
My idea is to do the same with Bitcoin addresses. A decentralised database of blacklisted addresses would be kept by anyone running a full node. Any funds in the blacklisted addresses are deemed worthless.
For example, address A gets listed for hacking into an exchange and stealing coins. Any funds held by address A would be deemed worthless. If they send 10 BTC to address B, then the network would remember that address B has 10 BTC that is worthless. If address B originally had 5 BTC and was sent 10 BTC by address A, they would have 15 BTC, but the bottom 10 BTC would be deemed worthless. If address B sends 2 BTC to address C, then C receives 2 good BTC and B is left with 3 good BTC and 10 blacklisted BTC, but if B sends another 4 BTC to address D, then D would receive 3 good BTC and 1 worthless BTC, and the network would now remember that D has 1 worthless Bitcoin. Therefore, before accepting the transaction as payment for something, they would have to check to make sure that they are not receiving worthless blacklisted coins.
Miners could also choose to selectively refuse to mine transactions involving blacklisted BTC because any miners' fees collected from such a transaction would be blacklisted as well. This could mean someone trying to send blacklisted BTC is essentially broadcasting a transaction with a 0 sat/byte fee rate, meaning their transaction would probably be stuck in the Mempool for quite a long time, if not forever if miners refuse to mine it.
Whenever someone wants an address blacklisted, they would announce it to the public via any mechanism, and anyone keeping a full node can decide whether or not to blacklist the address. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with the blacklisting is free to accept the coins at face value or mine them into a block. If you don't agree with the evidence presented, then you are free to not blacklist them. Therefore, contested coins would only be accepted as valid payment by those who think the coins should have never been blacklisted in the first place.
This system would not be meant to help every single person who gets scammed with Bitcoin, but it would discourage large scale wholesale Bitcoin fraud. It would be ridiculous to expect all full-node maintainers to become arbitrators of all disputes, and consensus would never be reached on half of the transactions being processed. Node operators would also ideally not have to remember as many transactions involving blacklisted coins because miners would refuse to mine them (transaction fees collected would be in blacklisted coins), meaning they'd be stuck in the Mempool for long periods of time, reducing the speed at which they can be moved around, if at all. So the ledger of blacklisted coins would not have to be updated extremely often. Blacklisting would only happen for really big scams involving tens or hundreds of Bitcoin, like if an exchange got hacked or something.
Scams have effectively less than an hour to be discovered. 10 minutes for the deposit into the address in question, and more, depending on how many block confirmations something must have before others will accept it for transactions sell goods for it. Therefore, if a merchant requires 3 block confirmations, then they would give 40 minutes for the address to be blacklisted. If the buyer's address is blacklisted before the transaction to the merchant gets 3 block confirmations, the merchant would realise they've been sent blacklisted coins and not ship the goods. 40 minutes isn't a lot of time, but it's better than nothing.
This has the additional effect of encouraging people to wait for more confirmations. For low-value transactions, the risk is nominal because even if you were sent worthless coins, you're probably only out the price of a coffee. But if you're selling a house, you might want to wait for even more block confirmations.
Money sent around too much could be deemed "too late to blacklist" if there is a risk that it would result in too many innocent people's Bitcoin getting blacklisted.
This system doesn't refund the Bitcoin of victims, so poor security practices would still be punished by a loss of coins, but criminals would not be rewarded for their efforts either. The lack of reward (or the risk of a lack of reward) would hopefully make people less inclined to try and pull off the type of big scams that are giving Bitcoin a bad reputation!
submitted by NateNate60 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I bought an Old Bitcoin Mining Rig - YouTube Bitcoin and Ethereum Price Technical Analysis Bitcoin to 6k!? Why? China Wants Control of BTC!! Bitcoin PwC, Drivechains BIPs, Bitcoin's Journey, Tether story? - Off Chain Daily 2017.12.02 DIY Bitcoin Mining: Hardware (part1) - YouTube

BIOS / Bitcoin Alltime daily Price and Volume chart for YoBit Compare. Today 2 Days 5 Days 10 Days 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months YTD 1 Year All time. Current Orderbook; Bid: 0.00000002 BTC: BIOS to Bitcoin Spread-0.00000001 BTC: Ask: 0.00000001 BTC: Whole bid volume: 0.015467817873348999 BTC 1465890.89366745 BTC: Ratio: 1 : 134.31 1 : 141.72 as BIOS: Whole ask volume : 2.0774999999999952 BTC ... Since Bitcoin is a distributed system, it is obviously open-source software. Whoever wants can contribute towards improving the system, obviously reaching the consensus of most of the network. Therefore, in order to make any kind of modification to Bitcoin, there is a standard called BIP. What are BIPs. The Bitcoin community is very large. Process BIPs are like Standards Track BIPs but apply to areas other than the Bitcoin protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Bitcoin's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational BIPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making ... Get Minter (BIP) price, charts, volume, market cap, exchange list and more. ... Minter/Bitcoin Ratio: 1 BTC = 4161360.55 BIP Popular coins right now on CoinGecko. eToro Sponsored. Tellor 0.7%. Ocean Protocol 10.3%. Crypto.com Coin -3.7%. DigiByte -1.0%. Akropolis -1.6%. YF Link 10.7%. cVault.finance -19.1%. Spot. Perpetuals. Futures. Affiliate disclosures Support CoinGecko. Links on this page ... While bitcoin is the most popular and valuable decentralized digital currency in the market today, it is not without its issues. One of the main challenges that the Bitcoin network faces is a lack of transaction privacy.

[index] [20727] [10663] [28707] [4690] [26333] [12636] [46325] [7363] [25165] [6294]

I bought an Old Bitcoin Mining Rig - YouTube

More Tether, Bitcoin Platinum, Bitcoin Uranium and Super Bitcoin - Off Chain Daily 2017.12.01 - Duration: 34:04. Off Chain with Jimmy Song 5,770 views Install Raid for Free IOS: https://clik.cc/lZAiM ANDROID: https://clik.cc/I3nBm Start with💰50K silver and join the Special Launch Tournament for a chance... Bitcoin price prediction. Bitcoin price technical analysis Bitcoin Price Trading Technical Analysis. Ethereum coin price analysis. Ethereum price prediction. Ethereum technical analysis. Bitcoin ... Website: https://bips.moneybrain.com Whitepaper: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/bips-moneybrain/documents/Moneybrain_BiPS_Whitepaper_v1.pdf Twitter: http... Get an additional $10 in Bitcoins from Coinbase when purchasing through my referral link http://fredyen.com/get/Bitcoins Raspberry Pi: http://amzn.to/2l6yrW7...

#