Blockchain Glossar - die wichtigsten Begriffe kurz erklärt

What is Bitjell? What is Jellcoin?

Definition of Jell
(of jelly or a similar substance) set or become firmer. "the stew is jelling" synonyms: set, stiffen, solidify, thicken, harden;
(of a project or idea) take a definite shape; begin to work well. "everything seemed to jell for the magazine" synonyms: take shape, fall into place, come together, take form, work out;
(of people) relate well to one another. "it's gratifying seeing everybody jelling"
What is Bitjell?
Here's the concept in a nutshell. Bitcoin demonstrated a fantastic, successful model, creating a currency through the "synergies of self interest". By providing incentives to early adopters, Bitcoin "bootstrapped" itself into a currency worth about ten billion dollars in five years.
Many people have tried to duplicate this success by creating so-called "alt-coins". This is not yet another attempt at an alt-coin.
Instead, this is an attempt to create the same "synergies of self interest", by emulating the Bitcoin coin distribution model, but instead of creating a currency, creating a company.
If there were no regulatory issues, I would have set up Bitjell to issue stock. 21 Million shares, 50 shares every ten minutes, following the same model as Bitcoin. Set out a plan for the company, and as people around the world perform work, their work is rewarded with company shares, bitcoins, cash, titles, etc.
Unfortunately, the regulatory environment makes this difficult. In order to issue company shares legally in some countries (including the US) beyond the founders, there are tons of rules to follow to be legally compliant. We'd have to take shareholder names and federal ID / social security numbers, file paperwork with the government, etc. Despite many Bitcoiner's general resistance to any legal compliance, Bitjell will strive to be legally compliant. But initially, we are not asking for names and ID's - just a bitcoin address. Privacy of participants will be maintained as long as possible.
This means that any activities on Bitjell by early participants are at your own risk, and are not under any formal promise to receive ownership, voting rights, etc. It will be this way until the legal framework is in place. This is a disclaimer like "void where prohibited", because without the legal framework in place (such as a corporation issuing shares), Bitjell (or this author) can't promise anything or make any offer to sell or exchange a security.
However, the plan - plan, not promise (for legal reasons!) - is to distribute what we are calling "Jellcoins" to early participants. The rate of distribution is intended to match the production schedule of Bitcoins, generally 50 coins every ten minutes on average. We will use the actual early distribution of Bitcoins as our model - the dates and times of the blocks can be found on For the record, the Bitjell Genesis block was "mined" (published) on the 5th anniversary of Bitcoin, and we will try to follow the Bitcoin mining schedule with a five year lag.
This means that Blocks 1-14 will be "mined" on 1/9. Note there was no "pre-mining". The 50 coins from the Genesis block are "owned by the collective" (i.e. analogous to company-owned shares).
So Jellcoins are somewhat analogous to shares in a company, if Bitjell were legally allowed to offer that. Note that Bitjell is not legally allowed to offer that, but someday, maybe, if possible, after the legal framework is in place, it's very possible (and planned) to make an offer to convert these to company shares at zero cost to the coin-holder. Unfortunately, this may require giving up some privacy (to register your shares). So you can expect this process to be less than 100%, as some coin-holders may not be reachable, some may opt not to convert coins to shares, etc. But we expect, and plan for, this process to be entirely at the discretion of the coin-holder, at no cost to them. (Plans sometimes change, and no promises can be made without encountering legal difficulties. But that's the plan as of Genesis day!)
The mission of Bitjell is to create a billion dollar company - a company with a billion dollars worth of value. It's that simple.
But what is Bitjell? Is it a company? Well, no, not yet. The plan is to follow regulatory steps and to be 100% compliant with the law, and found a company and grow it to a billion dollars of value, sharing ownership with people around the world. But it just makes no sense to do that at this point, until we have momentum and participants. So Bitjell is best thought of as an "interest group" or "club" which plans to start a business, but hasn't yet.
And Jellcoins ... what are they? Are they a currency? With FinCEN regulations and limitations regarding issuing currencies, the answer is definitely not! It is not a currency. It's not a tradeable commodity. It is not something that is for sale. It is modeled after "company shares", where the limit of the number of shares is 21 Million. But we can't call it company shares until the legal framework is in place.
So again, void where prohibited, regulated, licensed, or taxed. But Jellcoins are a tracking mechanism of your interest and participation in the Bitjell project.
Proof of Work function
Every alt-coin has some sort of Proof of Work function. Jellcoin is a little different. The "work" that will be performed is real stuff. Not numerical hashing. Instead, it will be contributions to the project.
If there were no regulatory environment, this would be simple. You perform work for the company, and you get rewarded in shares of company stock. That's the ultimate vision of Bitjell. Unfortunately, the regulatory environment makes this exceedingly difficult. SEC rules, labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc., of multiple jurisdictions around the world all get in the way of the ideal "virtual billion-dollar-startup".
In light of the regulations, until the proper corporate legal structure is in place to make everything legal in all appropriate jurisdictions, any "work" must not be work in the "minimum wage" sense of the word. (The term "work" is used, as it's a common term in crypto-currency - "proof of work") Any work performed must be done on a voluntary basis or a learning basis (Bitjell won't charge you for training, and you don't charge for work performed). You must not perform any "work" that is beyond a hobbyist contribution or a learning session, or otherwise cross over the legal requirements for "minimum wage" laws or any other laws for your jurisdiction. Again, the "void where prohibited, regulated, licensed or taxed" policy comes into play, until the appropriate legal framework is in place.
So How Will This Work?
Companies that will be worth a billion dollars in five years spring up about every month. We want to create one of those. ...out of nothing. We want to crowd-source the creation of a company, through "synergies of self-interest". We want to reward early adopters, so they recruit the very best people. We want people to contribute to figure out a way to create a company that sells real products or services to people, and generates real income, such that the total value of the company is greater than a Billion dollars. We want to follow in Bitcoin's footsteps, and reach that in under five years.
This means that we need to utilize the learnings of other successful organizations. Although we envision creating a non-traditional company, it should probably organize in a traditional manner: Corporate leaders and management, selected by a board of directors, who are voted on by the shareholders. Management sets the direction, individuals perform the work, and people get rewarded. Once the legal framework is in place, ideally, shares of the company will flow to workers every ten minutes. The greater the contribution toward the corporate goals, the greater the reward. Ideally, someday, this odd way to launch a company evolves into a real company like any other organization with which you are familiar.
Initially, Jellcoins, but ultimately corporate shares are one potential reward for participants. Other potential rewards are: Cash (Salary, Bonuses, payments for outsourced work), Titles, Responsibilities. This is no different from a traditional company. We believe that some people who see the vision will participate greatly, if they can earn a title of the "first CIO of what became a billion dollar company", for example. or "co-founder of what became a billion dollar company".
Further, there is little risk. Since participation can be pseudonymous, people can participate, receive a title (which can be verified on the "blockchain"), and then if Bitjell creates a billion dollar company, then they can prove their contribution by digitally signing something showing that it was their "address" that was associated with the title.
What will it take to make a billion dollar company?
I believe all it takes is some smart people with the right ideas, executing well, and maybe some start-up capital. I have some start-up capital. (I will be signing a message to prove that I have 1000 BTC as potential start-up capital for this project. I envision that being debt financing, not equity financing, although as mentioned before, no legal corporate entity is in place at this time, so some of these decisions will be made at a later date.)
What this doesn't mean is that you get a stake of 1000 BTC simply by participating. The 1000 BTC is a potential line of credit for a company that doesn't yet exist; nothing more at this point.
I have some ideas as to directions for the corporation as well, although I'm sure more heads are better than one when it comes to running this company successfully.
Hopefully this gives some idea of what I have in mind. Post any questions, and I'll try to address them.
submitted by BJ-1 to bitjell [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2017-01-09 to 2017-02-07 22:40 PDT

Period: 29.80 days
Submissions Comments
Total 999 28052
Rate (per day) 33.52 904.13
Unique Redditors 409 2067
Combined Score 56126 117584

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3835 points, 41 submissions: Egon_1
    1. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" (529 points, 262 comments)
    2. Charlie Shrem: "Oh cmon. @gavinandresen is the reason we are all here today. Stop attacking people, ...." (256 points, 61 comments)
    3. The core developers don't care about you. Let's fire them by hard fork to Bitcoin unlimited! (231 points, 83 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Core Hashrate Below 80% (211 points, 27 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin is an P2P electronic cash system, not digital gold. If Bitcoin's usefulness as cash is undermined, its value will be undermined too." (198 points, 196 comments)
    6. I like these ads (194 points, 25 comments)
    7. "ViaBTC Transaction Accelerator already help more than 5K delayed transactions got confirmed." (142 points, 27 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Unlimited: Over 800 PH/s (128 points, 21 comments)
    9. ViaBTC produces ZERO empty block in the last month. Best in SPV base mining pool. (117 points, 2 comments)
    10. New ATL (All Time Low) For Bitcoin Core Blocks (114 points, 59 comments)
  2. 2876 points, 24 submissions: ydtm
    1. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
    2. BU-SW parity! 231 vs 231 of the last 1000 blocks! Consensus will always win over censorship! MARKET-BASED blocksize will always win over CENTRALLY-PLANNED blocksize! People want blocksize to be determined by the MARKET - not by Greg Maxwell & his 1.7MB anyone-can-spend SegWit-as-a-soft-fork blocks. (271 points, 66 comments)
    3. The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price! (185 points, 80 comments)
    4. "Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan,, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
    5. "Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander (175 points, 110 comments)
    6. "You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
    7. Blockstream/Core don't care about you. They're repeatedly crippling the network with their DEV-CONTROLLED blocksize. Congestion & delays are now ROUTINE & PREDICTABLE after increased difficulty / time between blocks. Only we can fix the network - using MARKET-CONTROLLED blocksize (Unlimited/Classic) (168 points, 60 comments)
    8. 3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
    9. This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price. (143 points, 97 comments)
    10. Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
  3. 2424 points, 31 submissions: realistbtc
    1. Remember this picture ? It was a very strong and cool message from around 2014 . Well, sadly it's not true anymore. But it was universally liked in the Bitcoin space , and probably brought here some of us . I remember even luke-jr reposting it somewhere (oh , the hypocrysis!! ). (249 points, 55 comments)
    2. Emin Gun Sirer on Twitter ' My take is the exact opposite: we are now finding out that Segwit isn't necessary and we can get the same benefits via simpler means. " (248 points, 46 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on Twitter : ' The purpose of a consensus system is to arrive at one outcome. Participating means accepting the result even if you initially disagree. ' (204 points, 56 comments)
    4. enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
    5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter - 'This can't be controversial... can it? - a definition of Bitcoin' (136 points, 38 comments)
    6. adam back on twitter "contentious forks are bad idea for confidence & concept of digital scarcity. wait for the ETFs. profit. mean time deploy segwit & lightning" - no! a corrupt company like blockstream with a washed out ex cypherpunk like adam are what's bad for Bitcoin . (122 points, 115 comments)
    7. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" - if you stray from that , you don't get to keep calling it Bitcoin. call it blockstreamcoin, adamcoin, gregcoin, theymoscoin or whatever and go fork off yourself . (112 points, 19 comments)
    8. soon 21 will have to change the scale , because 180 satoshi/KB won't be enough anymore - madness - feel free to send your complaints to greg maxwell CTO of blockstream (112 points, 31 comments)
    9. PSA : if you use a ledger wallet , you risk paying an absurdly high free - see here : 10$ for a 225 bytes 150$ tx - but remember , it's all fine for your elitist and gregonomic friends at blockstream (109 points, 111 comments)
    10. Luke 'the liar' Dashjr : ' My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. ' -- yes , he wrote exactly that !! (96 points, 33 comments)
  4. 2129 points, 43 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. After failing to get 10K bitcoins for stolen NSA exploits, Shadow Brokers post farewell message, dump a cache of Windows hacking tools online (181 points, 23 comments)
    2. Coinbase and the IRS (146 points, 69 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter - There is a leadership gap in bitcoin left by technical community members who didn't listen to miners, businesses or users. (117 points, 44 comments)
    4. Blockstream Core developer says you should "pay a $5 fee" to get your transaction to go through! (116 points, 32 comments)
    5. $2.50 transaction FEE paid on $37 transaction, still unconfirmed for 24 hours!! (109 points, 37 comments)
    6. Blockstream shareholder gives a little more insight into the company (107 points, 33 comments)
    7. Finished setting up my Unlimited full node. Took just over 24 hrs to sync with a 5 yr old laptop and standard U.S. connection + $50 1TB hard drive! (96 points, 46 comments)
    8. Matt Corallo/TheBlueMatt leaves Blockstream to go work for Chaincode Labs... is the Blockstream house of cards beginning to crumble? (86 points, 175 comments)
    9. 53,000 transactions in the backlog! (75 points, 79 comments)
    10. Doctor ₿ Goss on Twitter: Spending a year on #segwit instead of coordinating blocksize increase may not have been wise. Money that doesn't work is worthless (70 points, 11 comments)
  5. 1590 points, 9 submissions: parban333
    1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
    2. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. (400 points, 207 comments)
    3. Remember: while the blockstream trolls take Peter R out of context, Peter Todd really think Bitcoin should have a 1%/security tax via inflation. (146 points, 92 comments)
    4. So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
    5. SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
    6. Remember: the manipulative Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, want to fool every newcomer that doesn't know better into thinking that he practically invented Bitcoin. (91 points, 22 comments)
    7. Not only segwit support is laughable at the moment for something targeting 95% adoption, but it's actually diminishing. Wallet devs and people that spent resources implementing that ridiculous contraption must feel a bit silly at the moment.... (83 points, 143 comments)
    8. It's ironic that blockstream's concerns about hard forks security are what's actually caused concerns about hard forks security. (46 points, 5 comments)
    9. The Intercept - "Hidden loopholes allow FBI agents to infiltrate political and religious groups" - Just something to consider, right? (27 points, 2 comments)
  6. 1471 points, 10 submissions: sandakersmann
    1. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." (472 points, 254 comments)
    2. Olivier Janssens on Twitter: "Do you like Bitcoin? Then you like an unlimited block size. The limit was put in place as a temp fix and was never hit before last year." (252 points, 189 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter: "Bigger blocks will allow more people access to every aspect of bitcoin, enhancing decentralization" (213 points, 179 comments)
    4. Is Bitcoin Unlimited Headed for Activation? (149 points, 38 comments)
    5. Marius Kjærstad on Twitter: "High fees push real economy out of #Bitcoin and makes price driven by speculation. Result is a lower real economy floor to catch the knife." (132 points, 37 comments)
    6. No Primary Litecoin Pool Will Upgrade to Segwit, Says LTC1BTC's Founder (103 points, 60 comments)
    7. Charlie Shrem: "Bitcoin is been built to appreciate or die. That's how it is. It has to continue to grow. If it doesn't grow then it's just gonna go away." (76 points, 15 comments)
    8. G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (Episode 166) (36 points, 1 comment)
    9. Joseph VaughnPerling on Twitter: "#SegWit on $LTC's safe b/c low TX vol. AnyoneCanSpend TX UTXO unlikely to hit 51% attack cost. On $BTC it'd be insidiously fatal. @SegWit" (21 points, 8 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Plummets After China Launches "Market Manipulation" Investigations Of Bitcoin Exchanges (17 points, 0 comments)
  7. 1408 points, 7 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. (307 points, 142 comments)
    2. Reality check: today's minor bug caused the pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
    3. Satoshi: "The eventual solution will be to not care how big [block size] gets." (250 points, 75 comments)
    4. Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks at all time high! (143 of last 1000) (191 points, 56 comments)
    6. Censored in bitcoin: "Bitcoin Core hashrate reaches 79.7%" (91 points, 61 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Transaction Fees - All Time (70 points, 18 comments)
  8. 1235 points, 40 submissions: chinawat
    1. Julian Assange just used the bitcoin block number 447506 as a proof of life. (199 points, 42 comments)
    2. "$3000 donated anonymously to the @internetarchive in bitcoin just now. Made our day!" -- Brewster Kahle on Twitter (97 points, 3 comments)
    3. ‘Barclays took my £440,000 and put me through hell’ | Money (76 points, 22 comments)
    4. Venezuelan Police Arrest Eight Bitcoin Miners in Two Weeks, and the Country's Leading Bitcoin Exchange Suspends Operations (52 points, 2 comments)
    5. The Path To $10,000 Bitcoin (46 points, 11 comments)
    6. How Deutsche Bank Made a $462 Million Loss Disappear (44 points, 6 comments)
    7. "The plan (#mBTC units) has been discussed amongst local #Chinese exchanges, & we believe it will appease the regulators, w/ "lower" prices." -- Bobby Lee on Twitter (43 points, 36 comments)
    8. "Everyone knows that we need to reduce the max block size, but is a one-time drop to 300 kB really the best way?" -- theymos (40 points, 68 comments)
    9. Buy bitcoin from any 7-11 in the Philippines (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. The Race Is On for a Bitcoin ETF (31 points, 14 comments)
  9. 1010 points, 17 submissions: 1and1make5
    1. Last 1000 Blocks - Bitcoin Unlimited overtakes soft-fork-segwit signaling (165 points, 25 comments)
    2. Again: Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization - Roger Ver (101 points, 59 comments)
    3. cnLedger on Twitter - "@todu77 Contacted http://BTC.TOP . A different logic was used when dealing w/ (very occasional) empty blc. They'll update to BU only" (94 points, 6 comments)
    4. Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right - Brian Armstrong (93 points, 30 comments)
    5. Last 1000 Blocks - 20% of the Bitcoin mining network supports Bitcoin Unlimited (89 points, 4 comments)
    6. current hashrate: ~100 Ph/s (71 points, 5 comments)
    7. Throwback Thursday: mined their first BU block 1 month ago with ~31 Ph/s, today they have ~149 Ph/s (68 points, 6 comments)
    8. Epicenter Bitcoin 166 - G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (63 points, 50 comments)
    9. Coinbase Obtains the Bitlicense (53 points, 19 comments)
    10. Fun fact (doesn't mean anything): In the last 24 hours more blocks have signaled support for Bitcoin Unlimited than soft-fork-segwit (53 points, 5 comments)
  10. 984 points, 20 submissions: seweso
    1. Bitcoin unlimited is an expression of freedom. And freedom will always be misconstrued by paternalists/statists as something dangerous. (120 points, 64 comments)
    2. My hope for Bitcoin Unlimited is not to force a hardfork upon everyone, but to break through the censorship, to open minds. (106 points, 88 comments)
    3. Core threatening a POW change makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. (97 points, 58 comments)
    4. "We will run a SegWit release in production by the time [a 2MB hardfork] is released in a version of Bitcoin Core." (94 points, 84 comments)
    5. Blocked by Peter Todd for pointing out he started the propaganda war with his slippery slope video. (92 points, 41 comments)
    6. I can't wait to spend everyone's SegWit funds on a hard-forked >1Mb chain. ~ Seweso (72 points, 72 comments)
    7. BashCo putting his Bitcoin ignorance on display by stating "60,000 #Bitcoin transactions don't just magically appear out of thin air. #spam" (66 points, 12 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core developers discussing and deciding on Bitcoin economics again (47 points, 13 comments)
    9. Reaction to: why-bitcoin-unlimiteds-emergent-consensus-gamble (46 points, 9 comments)
    10. "@seweso Show me an instance where core pushed out a change and cost miners a block reward." ~ I can do that ;) (37 points, 6 comments)
  11. 883 points, 16 submissions: Shock_The_Stream
    1. Emin Gün Sirer: Finally getting to the crux of the battle. LN/Segwit/fee-market are a synonym for "high fees." Nothing about this tech requires high fees. (155 points, 78 comments)
    2. BTC.TOP !! - New Alltime High for BU blocks @199 ! BTC.TOP alone just mined 4 BU blocks within 47 minutes (115 points, 26 comments)
    3. The great halvening of Samson's Segwit Pool: Mission accomplished! 1 yr: 12.50%, 6 month: 11.10%, 1 month: 7.83%, 1week: 6.67%, 4 days: 6% (107 points, 56 comments)
    4. Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ... (107 points, 45 comments)
    5. BS of the week by Rusty Russell: "If segwit doesn't activate, something is badly broken in Bitcoin" (102 points, 97 comments)
    6. Slush pool: Incredible bad luck for the Bitcoin Unlimited voters (43 points, 26 comments)
    7. The Bitfury Attack (43 points, 38 comments)
    8. 799! Jiang Zhuo'er teared down this wall! (40 points, 13 comments)
    9. Did Slush just stop mining segwit with the 'don't care' voters? (39 points, 36 comments)
    10. Fortune favours the bold: BTC.TOP with 300% luck today (30 points, 2 comments)
  12. 754 points, 10 submissions: AQuentson
    1. Price Shoots Up as Miners Checkmate and Bitcoin Unlimited Surpasses Segwit. (113 points, 28 comments)
    2. One Transaction Will Cost $400 if Bitcoin Hits $10,000 According to Jameson Lopp (104 points, 39 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Developer: Satoshi's Design Doesn't Work (100 points, 78 comments)
    4. Wow! Had no idea the BitcoinMarkets subreddit is completely censored. (90 points, 29 comments)
    5. F2Pool Will Not Upgrade Its Bitcoin Pool to Segwit "Anytime Soon" (89 points, 21 comments)
    6. The Bitcoin Market Needs Big Blocks, Says Founder of BTC.TOP Mining Pool (82 points, 21 comments)
    7. Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoins Stuck in Transaction Backlog (72 points, 8 comments)
    8. ViaBTC's Hashrate Increases to 12 Percent (58 points, 2 comments)
    9. “The protocol debate is not my priority." - Jihan Wu, Bitmain's Founder (24 points, 13 comments)
    10. Wow! Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoin is Stuck, Can't Move - What Happens if no Block is Found in One Hour (as has happened before) Will Bitcoin Literally Break Down? (22 points, 14 comments)
  13. 744 points, 10 submissions: BobsBurgers3Bitcoin
    1. Bitcoin Unlimited 1.0.0 has been released (274 points, 130 comments)
    2. Censored in r\Bitcoin: "35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents" (260 points, 123 comments)
    3. 35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents (74 points, 18 comments)
    4. Former Fed Employee Fined $5,000 for Using Computer for Bitcoin (37 points, 5 comments)
    5. Bitcoin: Why It Now Belongs in Every Portfolio (26 points, 0 comments)
    6. Bitcoin is 'a great hedge against the system' and could be the new gold (18 points, 1 comment)
    7. Bitcoin Will Change Money Like the Internet Changed Video (15 points, 0 comments)
    8. Is Warren Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin? (14 points, 3 comments)
    9. Bitseed Review – A Plug & Play Full Bitcoin Node (13 points, 2 comments)
    10. Bitcoin is soaring (and Business Insider does not change the title of the almost identical article published 3 weeks ago by the same author) (13 points, 1 comment)
  14. 732 points, 10 submissions: specialenmity
    1. Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
    2. "Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
    3. In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
    4. Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
    5. luke-jr defines "using bitcoin" as running a full node. Dictates that the cost of moving money ( a transaction) should exceed "using bitcoin". Hah (38 points, 17 comments)
    6. If it's not activating that is a strong evidence that the claims of it being dire were and continue to be without substance. nullc (36 points, 23 comments)
    7. I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
    8. "The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
    9. At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
    10. The flawed mind of jstolfi (13 points, 17 comments)
  15. 708 points, 7 submissions: knight222
    1. BTC.TOP operator: “We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS.” (241 points, 252 comments)
    2. For those who missed it, this is how the hardfork with Bitcoin Unlimited will happen. (173 points, 79 comments)
    3. Blocks mined with Bitcoin Unlimited reaching 18% (133 points, 28 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Unlimited is less than 1% away from outpacing Segwit for the last 1000 blocks mined (90 points, 44 comments)
    5. BU nodes peaked in the last days (28 points, 6 comments)
    6. Blockstream never tried to compromise but they will (too late). This is why: (22 points, 4 comments)
    7. BTC.TOP is having a good day (21 points, 6 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Adrian-X (3622 points, 821 comments)
  2. H0dl (3157 points, 563 comments)
  3. Bitcoinopoly (2732 points, 345 comments)
  4. knight222 (2319 points, 361 comments)
  5. MeTheImaginaryWizard (2043 points, 429 comments)
  6. Ant-n (1818 points, 387 comments)
  7. todu (1756 points, 265 comments)
  8. seweso (1742 points, 328 comments)
  9. awemany (1690 points, 401 comments)
  10. Shock_The_Stream (1647 points, 217 comments)
  11. Helvetian616 (1578 points, 206 comments)
  12. Egon_1 (1478 points, 162 comments)
  13. realistbtc (1299 points, 95 comments)
  14. BitcoinIsTehFuture (1231 points, 139 comments)
  15. LovelyDay (1226 points, 196 comments)
  16. thcymos (1172 points, 117 comments)
  17. BeijingBitcoins (1098 points, 58 comments)
  18. Yheymos (1061 points, 69 comments)
  19. steb2k (1058 points, 238 comments)
  20. ydtm (987 points, 132 comments)
  21. dontcensormebro2 (975 points, 106 comments)
  22. chinawat (972 points, 223 comments)
  23. increaseblocks (934 points, 73 comments)
  24. segregatedwitness (921 points, 101 comments)
  25. Annapurna317 (874 points, 146 comments)
  26. DaSpawn (817 points, 162 comments)
  27. insette (808 points, 91 comments)
  28. TanksAblazment (803 points, 150 comments)
  29. blockstreamcoin (787 points, 133 comments)
  30. MeatsackMescalero (774 points, 95 comments)
  31. satoshis_sockpuppet (745 points, 126 comments)
  32. BitcoinXio (739 points, 50 comments)
  33. jstolfi (734 points, 183 comments)
  34. singularity87 (720 points, 90 comments)
  35. Richy_T (704 points, 163 comments)
  36. redlightsaber (690 points, 138 comments)
  37. Leithm (686 points, 74 comments)
  38. ErdoganTalk (668 points, 252 comments)
  39. BitcoinPrepper (665 points, 89 comments)
  40. reddaxx (664 points, 105 comments)
  41. r1q2 (660 points, 110 comments)
  42. papabitcoin (653 points, 79 comments)
  43. 2ndEntropy (632 points, 76 comments)
  44. FormerlyEarlyAdopter (608 points, 92 comments)
  45. Coolsource (595 points, 116 comments)
  46. Peter__R (589 points, 43 comments)
  47. timepad (570 points, 62 comments)
  48. Rawlsdeep (564 points, 109 comments)
  49. themgp (560 points, 46 comments)
  50. ForkiusMaximus (558 points, 89 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
  2. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" by Egon_1 (529 points, 262 comments)
  3. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." by sandakersmann (472 points, 254 comments)
  4. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. by parban333 (400 points, 207 comments)
  5. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
  6. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. by BeijingBitcoins (307 points, 142 comments)
  7. Massive censorship on "/bitcoin" continues by BitcoinIsTehFuture (296 points, 123 comments)
  8. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "You can talk about anything in BTC and it won't be auto deleted" by BitcoinXio (291 points, 69 comments)
  9. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks exceed Core for first time, 232 vs. 231 of last 1,000 by DNVirtual (282 points, 84 comments)
  10. As relevant as it's always been by iopq (276 points, 15 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  2. 123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  3. 117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
  4. 117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
  5. 113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
  6. 106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  7. 98 points: lon102guy's comment in loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  8. 97 points: bigboi2468's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
  9. 92 points: vbuterin's comment in [Mark Friedenbach] There is a reason we are generally up in arms about "abusive" data-on-blockchain proposals: it is because we see the potential of this tech!
  10. 89 points: Peter__R's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

The psychology of the pure mathematician

February 12, 2014.
"Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten, because languages die and mathematical ideas do not. 'Immortality' may be a silly word, but probably a mathematician has the best chance of whatever it may mean."[1] - G. H. Hardy.
The psychology of the pure mathematician
The standard of analytical and conceptual sophistication characterized by the education and occupation of a pure mathematician is far beyond the qualifications of any other discipline, but why is pure mathematics even a legitimate aspiration? In comparison with other disciplines, almost everybody working in math would be classified as a pure researcher, while as a subset of mathematical inquiry 'pure' usually refers to number theory and other topics whose abstractness is especially distinguished.


The idea of encryption is that some valuable item can made inaccessible without a key. A key is an object that comes from a very large set of possible objects. This is necessary for it to be difficult to find the right key by guessing. Keys are also arbitrary. It is not possible to "figure out" the right key; any guess is as good as any other. In addition, having the right key for one lock does not make it any easier to find the right key for another. Of course, this is not true in practice; passwords can often be "figured out". However, it should be understood that what is known in practice as encryption is only really encryption to the extent that this is true.
To say that something is encrypted is to say that its acquisition requires the possession of a key. For example, user-accounts, PGP-messages, and bitcoin-blocks are encrypted. On the other hand, the proof of a mathematical theorem is not encrypted. Though a given proof is taken from a very large set of possibilities (say, the set of intelligible essays), the "right" choice (or choices) is not arbitrary; it can be "figured out."
A more controversial claim is that art is encrypted. One can imagine some nucleus in the brain that determines whether a perceived image is beautiful. The complainer feels that there is an inherent arbitrariness in this structure, so that though it may take great effort to produce beautiful objects, their discovery does not involve any conceptual advance; it does not inform further efforts. The next beautiful object will require no less effort to produce. Discovering a beautiful object amounts to discovering a key that activates this brain structure. Thus, it is felt, the value of art lies solely in the pleasure it brings us; for a key is useless once the lock is opened and the treasure looted.

To the pure mathematician, most applied knowledge is encrypted

To make progress in the applied sciences, we must perform dissections, build and conduct experiments, perform meticulous excavations, etc. This requires not only mental effort, but money and power. And what are the fruits of this massive expenditure? A new drug, a new bomb, a criminal proved guilty; and most of all: more money and power.
But what if we are not interested in money and power? Why, if we had no such interest, would we be applied scientists? The observation of the pure mathematician is that if we are not interested in money, the applied sciences are less rewarding than other endeavors, such as pure mathematics. The value of the applied sciences lies primarily in the money and power they produce, and if this value is removed, the activity is substantially less worthwhile. This is the characteristic property of the activity of decryption.


The relevant concept of value here seems to be understanding. The maxim of the pure mathematician is that there is such a thing as understanding, and that understanding itself, not what is understood, is the greatest good (has the greatest value). There are at least two lines of support for this maxim, one psychological and one ethical.

Definition of purism

When speaking of purism, I am referring to (1) the wills and constructions governing the actions of its adherents, who are called purists, and (2) the ethical views that justify these. The first will be called psychological purism, the second ethical purism. Here, justification means arguments that serve to cause people to regard psychological purism as good, in the ethical sense that kindness is regarded as good.

Description of the psychological purist

The purist believes that understanding is good. The purist finds that all understanding is equally rewarding, in the sense of being pleasurable– though I prefer not to use this term– no matter what it is of or what its applications are. At least, he finds it compelling, in the sense that he spends much of his time pursuing it. Hence the purist adopts a policy of disregarding applications and rather choosing endeavors based on their likelihood to improve understanding. The purist observes that working on a particular problem, or in a bounded field such as biology or physics, has the effect of diminishing understanding. It does so by attributing importance to the applications of the understanding, thereby making some understanding more desirable than other, and effectively leading to a trade of understanding for application.
The purist is not confused about the meaning of 'understanding.' It is a psychological phenomenon that can easily be identified. It is not a simplistic phenomenon and, like beauty, cannot be fooled. It may perhaps be described as a process whereby large collections of facts are subsumed by smaller ones, as when one understands the algorithm to solve a type of puzzle, thereby providing a substitute for the knowledge of the solution to each individual puzzle of this type. Understanding is largely synonymous with abstraction.
Many pure mathematicians are purists. This amounts to the statement that pure mathematics is a rich source of understanding. Why not art or history? The purist finds that such endeavors do not produce as much understanding as mathematics. They are difficult (by which I mean mentally taxing, in the same way that mathematics research is mentally taxing), but in the end the purist finds that considerably less understanding is produced from such studies. Many purists reach the same conclusion about philosophy. Though a pure mathematician may pursue some philosophical problems, such as "What should I do with my life?", it is generally not for the same reason that he does mathematics– not for understanding– and perhaps simply because he is too tired to do mathematics. The general principle, for which evidence in the form of the purist's experiences is plentiful, is that what is definitive, such as mathematics, is likely to lead to more understanding than what is not, such as philosophy.
It is important to emphasize that this description of the purist is not a definition. The purist may be completely unaware of this description; the purist seeks understanding not necessarily because of a belief that understanding is good, but because it is compelling. Understanding is used here merely as a term that seems very effectively to describe what a certain type of person, the pure mathematician, finds rewarding.

Idealization of understanding justifies purism

It is obvious that more understanding is achieved when the object of the understanding is unspecified than when it is restricted. And this implies that, insofar as understanding is a goal in itself, the object of the understanding is not important.
A similar argument appears in many different contexts. The pure artist argues that if beauty is what is important, it would be foolish to restrict ourselves to, say, drawing only portraits, or only things that actually exist in the world. The pure athlete argues that if fitness is what is important, it would be foolish to restrict ourselves to a single, popular sport.

The temperance argument for ethical purism

Is the purist's idealization of understanding justified? There is a common argument used to justify basic (pure) research. It asserts that even if applications (money) are all we are interested in, basic research is still important. For the understanding that comes from basic research reveals applications that we did not anticipate.
I will call this the temperance argument. It is difficult to support this argument on purely logical grounds. But the empirical support is abundant. Furthermore, the value of at least some quantity of basic research is never questioned by scientists.
But does the purist's extremism not represent a misguided adoption of an empirical pattern as a fundamental principle? It is as if one has observed that food is nourishing, and so decides to eat as much as possible. Behind the temperance argument is the assumption that applications are most important. But then it is important to solve crimes, build bridges, develop drugs, etc., if only to make more basic research possible.
It is possible to take the position that, though applied work could be important, it is so rarely so as to be hardly worth bothering with. For example, one could argue that the value of, say, building a bridge, pales in comparison to the value of an equal amount of labor devoted to basic research.
But this position may fail to justify what the purist would like it to (such as mathematics). For if basic research is our goal, then shouldn't we be working feverishly to develop artificial intelligence that surpasses our own, thus making more and better basic research possible? Shouldn't we devote some of our efforts to exposition, thus improving the quality of our fellow researchers? Perhaps the pure mathematician who finds a slogan (as I once did) in Hardy's embittered pronouncement,
"...there is no scorn more profound, or on the whole more justifiable, than that of the men who make for the men who explain. Exposition, criticism, appreciation, is work for second-rate minds,"[1]
does so in order to dispel his own disturbing insight that his extremism may tend more toward selfishness than he is comfortable with. (Hardy here was talking about the rhetorical justification of the discipline of mathematics.)

The role of admiration

Whether we acknowledge it or not, admiration and indignation may play a major role in what we decide to do with our lives; we strive to embody what we admire. These motivations are characterized by the fact that they would not be present in one who felt oneself to be alone in the world. There are several things that make the endeavor of pure mathematics inspire admiration, some of which are discussed in the following sections.


In general mathematicians have extremely powerful minds, probably due to long-term strenuous exercise. This is necessary because mathematics research is extremely difficult, and very few people are capable of doing it effectively. It shares this property with many other pursuits, including art. However, good mathematics is more difficult to fake. Nobody claims to have an animal capable of producing mathematical theorems, but many people believe that animals can produce good art. In many sciences also, there are ways to contribute to the building of a structure without doing the job of the architect. The facts indicate that such contributions are less possible in mathematics than in other sciences.


Definitiveness is part of any definition of mathematics. In philosophy one can have a view or opinion, and in science one can adhere to a hypothesis— you can take a stand. This is not done in mathematics. When mathematicians speak of conjectures, they are simply describing an unanswered question, and no mathematician would presume to know the answer without a proof to establish absolute certainty. This is appealing to the personality that considers it a great weakness to take a controversial position and turn out to be wrong. A typical mathematician would find the thought of his comrades seriously taking sides on the Riemann hypothesis to be a good joke. But philosophy and many sciences are full of heated dichotomies.


Mathematics is fundamental. When confronted with an abstruse concept in, say, biochemistry, the mathematician can always fall back on a dismissive remark to the effect that it is a special case of some trivial mathematical construction, and that he would rather study something more fundamental. Indeed, such remarks are usually justifiable from the point of view of the purist.


Pure mathematics does not require, nor even benefit substantially from, money, equipment, resources, etc. A pencil and paper are enough for the vast majority of pure mathematicians. For the most part, no quantity of funding beyond a stipend permitting a comfortable life for its practitioners helps to advance pure mathematics. This is different from nearly all other scientific endeavors.


Paul Hoffman's book is dedicated simply,
"To Pali básci… who got by with a little help from his friends, and achieved immortality with his proofs and conjectures."[2]
  1. G. H. Hardy, "A Mathematician's Apology," (1940)
  2. Paul Hoffman, "The man who loved only numbers: the story of Paul Erdős and the search for mathematical truth," (1998)
submitted by nafindix to Nafindix [link] [comments]

How Bitcoin mining actually works - What is the ... How to Calculate Bitcoin Difficulty What is Crypto Mining Difficulty and How it Impacts YOUR Profits - Explained W/ BTC ZenCash ZEC Bitcoin Q&A: What is difficulty targeting? Cryptocurrency Mining Difficulty Explained - Mining Difficulty And Analysis

Oftmals wird der Überbegriff „Distributed Ledger“ synonym verwendet, auch wenn nicht jeder Distributed Ledger unbedingt eine Blockkette verwendet. 2. Herkunft: Blockchain ist die Basistechnologie und zentrale Innovation der Kryptowährung Bitcoin. Sie geht zurück auf ein Arbeitspapier, das im November 2008 anonym über eine Mailing-Liste veröffentlicht wurde. Darin beschreibt der bis ... Another word for difficulty. Find more ways to say difficulty, along with related words, antonyms and example phrases at, the world's most trusted free thesaurus. Current Bitcoin Hash Difficulty Synonym; Chart Explained Red line The difficulty. Green line The estimated next difficulty. Blue line Average block generation time of 2016 blocks. Block generation time is also known as confirmation time. Grey line Average block generation time of 1008 blocks. If grey line less than blue line, The generation time is decreasing. Bitcoin Hash Calculator. The more ... Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. The difficulty of finding a bitcoin block is approximately 10 minutes of processing for the entire network, based on the time it took to find the previous 2,016 blocks, adjusted every 2,016 blocks. Note that the target difficulty is independent of the number of transactions or the value of transactions. This means that the amount of hashing power and therefore electricity expended to secure ...

[index] [38612] [44518] [19561] [8499] [28510] [32385] [28292] [9006] [48501] [5404]

How Bitcoin mining actually works - What is the ...

Live Bitcoin Trading With Crypto Trading Robot DeriBot on Deribit DeriBot Alternative channel 932 watching Live now Crypto Mining Difficulty 101 - Everything You Need to Know - Duration: 18:40. Bitcoin Mining Difficulty: An Overview - Duration: 4:37. AMBCrypto Recommended for you. 4:37 . Why there will never be more than 21 million bitcoin. - Duration: 8:18. Keifer Kif 751 views. 8:18 ... What is crypto mining difficulty, how is it adjusted, what is the point of a block time? Vosk explains how the difficulty for mining a block reward is adjusted when mining Bitcoin on sha-256 or ... Bitcoin Cash, Alert: Mining Difficulty, Block Halving & Profitability vs. Bitcoin-BTC: We are living in very exciting times... Genesis Mining was founded in 2013 Butterfly labs, bitcoin block, block erupter, difficulty, asic miner, Bitcoin, how much will bitcoin difficulty increase, bitcoin mining, what is bitcoin ...