News Ticker

Today in Bitcoin (2018-01-09) – Dimon Regrets – MAST Treechains – Coinbase Segwit 5,000 Signatures

Earn 10-30% pm Safely Trading Forex On Autopilot

Largest drawdown during 19 years back testing and 2 years live testing is 33%

£15 monthly payment is the only up front out of pocket expense

20% of profits paid at the beginning of every month


Not tied in for any length of time

£1000 minimum deposit in your own ICMarkets broker account

Paypal account is required

Click here to go to facebook group

Account Doubled in 14 weeks

Donate Bitcoin: 3NqhJSAikoFiYmZm3ACGzdw9Lr86ZiLT7K
Support the Show:

Listen to WCN Audio Podcasts:

Check out the brand new

‎14748.80 USD / BTC – Average United States Dollar Bitcoin Price

Jamie Dimon says he regrets calling bitcoin a fraud

The Next Step to Improve Bitcoin’s Flexibility, Scalability and Privacy Is Called MAST — Bitcoin Magazine

Petition to Bring SegWit to Coinbase Nears 5000 Signatures –

Petition · Coinbase: Coinbase: Prioritize SegWit implementation on the Coinbase Bitcoin Wallet & GDAX Exchange. ·

TorGuard on Twitter: "ATT BTC Users: TorGuard now accepts mainnet Lightning Network BTC payments. Ask support for details! #bitcoin #lightning "

Keonne Rodriguez on Twitter: "BIP176 – do not want If decimals confuse you, you shouldn't be using Bitcoin in the first place. The unit bias argument is completely n… "

Neeraj K. Agrawal on Twitter: " "

Bitcoin Mining Wastes Energy? What If That's Good? – CoinDesk

Harvard Professors Predict Bitcoin Collapse Due to Gov… | News | Cointelegraph

Bitcoin is teaching libertarians everything they don’t know about economics – The Washington Post

Below $15K: Bitcoin Plays Defense Amid Bear Move – CoinDesk

Cryptocurrency Market Capitalizations | CoinMarketCap

Major Cryptocurrency Index Excludes Korean Prices Without Warning | Fortune

Follow WCN on Twitter:


32 Comments on Today in Bitcoin (2018-01-09) – Dimon Regrets – MAST Treechains – Coinbase Segwit 5,000 Signatures

  1. Whether development is more centralized (Bitcoin Core) or whether the processing nodes are more centralized (Bitcoin Cash), there are, perhaps, hundreds of better crypto coins ready to takeover.

  2. Excellent! Please keep pushing SegWit in every Video. At least mention it and encourage other youtuber to do same. Thank you very much.

  3. Good show Dr. Hunt! Why does this show onky 52000 subscribers baffles the mind should be at least over a hundred

  4. Hi Thomas, nice video and interesting channel. I have subscribed.

    WOW, Iknew who Dimon was and what he said weeks ago but I didn’t know about his regret . That could be really interesting, if someone from JP Morgan says that he believes in blockchain technology. This can have some impact in the market.

    On the other hand, I think that the most important problems of BTC are scalability and privacy. Do you think that MAST will work? Is not going to be another fork? My question is, if there are other coins/projects (PIVX, DeepOnion, Dash, Verge,….) that have this problems solved, why don’t we use them? (Instead of create a new fork of BTC)

  5. I totally don’t understand or believe how larger blocksize stops scaling or enables government to be able to shutdown Bitcoin? At 7:50 “The more you increase the blocksize, the more you increase the requirements for the nodes that run those servers and process those transactions and the easier it is for a government to stop your transactions”. I think that is a nonsensical statement but if not, please describe the OPTIMUM size that protects against the government stopping a transaction? My own thought is that it would be a random size that would be the least detectable. One that constantly bumps against a ceiiling say at 1 mb, then a governement can look for all 1 mb files. I think Bitcoin Core’s constant hitting that ceiling is the more likely to be setting itself up to be interrupted by blocksize, rather than Bitcoin cash?

    • My understanding is that smaller block sizes keeps the physical technology requirements down cost-wise so that average people can run nodes and add to the decentralization and dispersement of the network. Imagine if wanting verifiable access to the ledger meant owning massive warehouse with untold $$ in gear just to remain in consensus and fighting a constant uphill battle.

    • That’s the small block argument, but there is no analysis that I have seen quantifying how much extra hardware is required and its costs. All I do know is that we already have several bitcoin-based coins using big blocks, such as Bitcoin cash, and I don’t read anything about Nodes being more expensive so my current view is that its a lie therefore big blocks do not cause centralization.

    • Atir Raihan bch has increased the block size already and still isn’t even close to the 2000 tx per second that visa can do. It’s simple math. The amount of storage space required just to be able to download the blockchain would go up exponentially. You fell for a lie. Bigger block sizes are not the solution to scalability, that much is obvious but there is a never ending line of defenders like you who are ready to parrot all the b.s. spewed out by the bch camp in their quest to become the top dog.

    • @ash J williams, Let me educate you.
      1. The blockchain is a record of all transactions that have ever occurred, and its size is not related to the block size used to transport packages of in-process unconfirmed transactions.
      2. The bottleneck is not the initial download of the entire ledger, it’s the number of transactions that can be transmitted every 10 mins.
      3. Scalability is an ongoing iterative process and not a single point solution and the BS is that if you wait for the holy grail of Lightening – which will take YEARS, require KYC, be censorable and will STILL incur the bitcoin fees for transactions to eventually be added to the blockchain – all will be well. This is not only a pipe dream but a path into the hands of the banking cartels.

      I understand the loyalty to Bitcoin core, but Lightening is not what you are being told, and in the meantime, our beloved Bitcoin is bleeding loyalty, utility, and market dominance.

      Is that what you wanted for Bitcoin?

      Finally, no-one gives a @#$% about being top dog, we want the digital cash as defined by the requirements (white paper) and not a settlement layer that is designed to promote a technology that is funded by establishment VCs. If you want a settlement layer, drop the Bitcoin name or give us what the requirement specify,

    • @ash J williams, you may want to read this

      In August 2017, Bitcoin forked into two variants. These have taken radically different paths.

      Looking at the situation one quarter later, it is clear to us that the Blockstream fork of bitcoin diverges so radically from the ideas presented in the Bitcoin white paper, that it is an evolutionary dead end. While it may still have high trading value, as a mere collectible of curiosity, the Blockstream fork of bitcoin is not part of building any future financial infrastructure, which is what Block Explorer is about.

      A currency of the future has subcent optional usage fees and instant transactions. The Blockstream fork of Bitcoin (“Bitcoin Legacy”) is at $20 usage fees and rising, with no end in sight, and can take days to confirm, despite unfulfilled promises to the contrary on both points when Segwit activated in what can only be described as a community fistfight. We are therefore making the decision to consider the Blockstream fork deprecated, and support it as legacy technology only.

      Rather, we have made the decision to support the only bitcoin fork with a postive utility momentum, which is Bitcoin Cash. We took an early decision to deploy a Bitcoin Cash block explorer and will continue to roll out related services. We are also deploying tools for other cryptocurrencies we find on a positive momentum path, such as ZCash, which have increased privacy value.

      We will not add future support for the Blockstream fork of bitcoin (“Bitcoin Legacy”), and will be deprecating it entirely at some future point in time to be determined. Developments have revealed it to be a dead end. At such a time, we will refer to Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin only, but will make some effort to not break API calls by changing URLs of legacy automated systems.

  6. Thomas; two things:
    1. Using the term “bits”, as proposed by your friend, Jimmy Song, is not meant to replace their term “Bitcoin” – it is simply meant to make it easier to talk about Bitcoin in smaller units. Most fiat currencies have that already (dollars and cents, Euros and Euro cents, etc). We don’t usually talk about naught point zero five dollars when we mean five cents, so why say naught point naught naught naught naught 1 Bitcoin when we mean 10 bits. I have a good math head, but dealing with many decimal places is not natural for humans.
    2. Decimal numbers are read number by number. Eg: 3.45 is pronounced “three point four five”, not “three point forty five”. .45 has nothing to do with forty five.
    Btw, I enjoy your videos, even though they’re a little biased 😉

  7. Expecting others to implement Segwit to improve Bitcoin, is like asking a country to change its roads, instead of building a better car. As a result of such delays, Bitcoin loses market dominance. Well done Bitcoin Core.

  8. Washed trading….or it’s a premium as a result of difficult fiat onramps. On Bithumb for example, why would a majority of the volume take place at the 75 cent level. I don’t think they stoped trading with themselves, something else is going on. I trade on Gdax and don’t pay fees, is that washed trading or am I missing something?

Comments are closed.