The First Bitcoin ETF Offers Easy Way to Profit from ...

Wrapping up the block size debate with voting | jl2012 at xbt.hk | Aug 04 2015

jl2012 at xbt.hk on Aug 04 2015:
As now we have some concrete proposals
(https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009808.html),
I think we should wrap up the endless debate with voting by different
stakeholder groups.
Candidate proposals
Candidate proposals must be complete BIPs with reference implementation
which are ready to merge immediately. They must first go through the
usual peer review process and get approved by the developers in a
technical standpoint, without political or philosophical considerations.
Any fine tune of a candidate proposal may not become an independent
candidate, unless it introduces some “real” difference. “No change” is
also one of the voting options.
Voter groups
There will be several voter groups and their votes will be counted
independently. (The time frames mentioned below are just for example.)
Miners: miners of blocks with timestamp between 1 to 30 Sept 2015 are
eligible to vote. One block one vote. Miners will cast their votes by
signing with the bitcoin address in coinbase. If there are multiple
coinbase outputs, the vote is discounted by output value / total
coinbase output value.
Many well-known pools are reusing addresses and they may not need to
digitally sign their votes. In case there is any dispute, the digitally
signed vote will be counted.
Bitcoin holders: People with bitcoin in the UTXO at block 372500 (around
early September) are eligible to vote. The total “balance” of each
scriptPubKey is calculated and this is the weight of the vote. People
will cast their votes by digital signature.
Special output types:
Multi-sig: vote must be signed according to the setting of the
multi-sig.
P2SH: the serialized script must be provided
Publicly known private key: not eligible to vote
Non-standard script according to latest Bitcoin Core rules: not eligible
to vote in general. May be judged case-by-case
Developers: People with certain amount of contribution in the past year
in Bitcoin Core or other open sources wallet / alternative
implementations. One person one vote.
Exchanges: Centralized exchanges listed on Coindesk Bitcoin Index,
Winkdex, or NYSE Bitcoin index, with 30 days volume >100,000BTC are
invited. This includes Bitfinex, BTC China, BitStamp, BTC-E, itBit,
OKCoin, Huobi, Coinbase. Exchanges operated for at least 1 year with
100,000BTC 30-day volume may also apply to be a voter in this category.
One exchange one vote.
Merchants and service providers: This category includes all bitcoin
accepting business that is not centralized fiat-currency exchange, e.g.
virtual or physical stores, gambling sites, online wallet service,
payment processors like Bitpay, decentralized exchange like
Localbitcoin, ETF operators like Secondmarket Bitcoin Investment Trust.
They must directly process bitcoin without relying on third party. They
should process at least 100BTC in the last 30-days. One merchant one
vote.
Full nodes operators: People operating full nodes for at least 168 hours
(1 week) in July 2015 are eligible to vote, determined by the log of
Bitnodes. Time is set in the past to avoid manipulation. One IP address
one vote. Vote must be sent from the node’s IP address.
Voting system
Single transferable vote is applied.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote). Voters are
required to rank their preference with “1”, “2”, “3”, etc, or use “N” to
indicate rejection of a candidate.
Vote counting starts with every voter’s first choice. The candidate with
fewest votes is eliminated and those votes are transferred according to
their second choice. This process repeats until only one candidate is
left, which is the most popular candidate. The result is presented as
the approval rate: final votes for the most popular candidate / all
valid votes
After the most popular candidate is determined, the whole counting
process is repeated by eliminating this candidate, which will find the
approval rate for the second most popular candidate. The process repeats
until all proposals are ranked with the approval rate calculated.
Interpretation of results:
It is possible that a candidate with lower ranking to have higher
approval rate. However, ranking is more important than the approval
rate, unless the difference in approval rate is really huge. 90% support
would be excellent; 70% is good; 50% is marginal; <50% is failed.
Technical issues:
Voting by the miners, developers, exchanges, and merchants are probably
the easiest. We need a trusted person to verify the voters’ identity by
email, website, or digital signature. The trusted person will collect
votes and publish the named votes so anyone could verify the results.
For full nodes, we need a trusted person to setup a website as an
interface to vote. The votes with IP address will be published.
For bitcoin holders, the workload could be very high and we may need
some automatic system to collect and count the votes. If people are
worrying about reduced security due to exposed raw public key, they
should move their bitcoin to a new address before voting.
Double voting: people are generally not allowed to change their mind
after voting, especially for anonymous voters like bitcoin holders and
solo miners. A double voting attempt from these classes will invalidate
all related votes.
Multiple identity: People may have multiple roles in the Bitcoin
ecology. I believe they should be allowed to vote in all applicable
categories since they are contributing more than other people.
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009887.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

If we repeat 2015 the Bitcoin Bearmarket is over now! Why Nasdaq Bought SecondMarket TOM LEE: BITCOIN ETF IS YEARS AWAY Bitcoin Massive Dump ahead!? *SEC ETF NEWS* Is a Bitcoin ETF Around the Corner?

Second, the ARK ETF is not actually investing directly in bitcoins. It's buying shares of something called the Bitcoin Investment Trust. Most people haven't even heard of that. Maybe 2015? I don't think he really knows. permalink; embed; save; parent; give award ; pecuniology 3 points 4 points 5 points 4 years ago . Bitcoin Investment Trust (BIT) shares must be held a minimum of one year before being made available to the public. BIT started in late September 2013, and Barry Silbert has made no secret of wanting to scoop the Winklevoss ETF. permalink; embed; save ... Grace Caffyn Oct 27, 2015. MasterCard has been named as one of 11 investors in Digital Currency Group's new funding round. Venture Capital. SecondMarket’s Bitcoin Desk Relaunches as Genesis ... Barry Silbert's Digital Currency Group has lined up investors like MasterCard. The first Bitcoin ETF for "ordinary" investors to buy is almost here... The Bitcoin Investment Trust got approval last week from the Financial.

[index] [5043] [42122] [40043] [42279] [958] [12679] [31111] [10831] [39831] [997]

If we repeat 2015 the Bitcoin Bearmarket is over now!

I don't believe Bitcoin needs an ETF. I believe the financial institutions behind the ETFs need Bitcoin. What do you think? I personally think Bitcoin and cryptocurrency would do just fine without it. Jackson Zeng COO, Caleb and Brown breaks down the jargons to give his take on the hot topic of Bitcoin ETF in this video. There is a huge emphasis on Bitcoin ETFs in the investment community. Katie Roof speaks with Bill Siegel, Head of NASDAQ Private Market, about NASDAQ's recent acquisition of SecondMarket Solutions. Read full article: http://tcr... Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss believe 2015 is the year of infrastructure for Bitcoin. That's why they have been hard at work on Gemini.com, a US-based bitcoin exchange, and COIN, their bitcoin ETF. Bitcoin ETFs will be good for the market says O'Shares' chairman - Duration: 6:06. CNBC Television 44,746 views. 6:06. Bitcoin Experts On Why Crypto May Get To $1,000,000 - Duration: 4:41. ...

#