Micropayments: Bringing Cryptocurrencies Into Everyday Life

[Tipping Tuesday] With a stable and reliable micropayment system ensured by Bitcoin's latest upgrade, in the future, everything will be a market. Every newspaper, cup of coffee and watt of electricity will fluctuate by the min. and we will all be expert in planning our lives around "peek" pe /r/btc

[Tipping Tuesday] With a stable and reliable micropayment system ensured by Bitcoin's latest upgrade, in the future, everything will be a market. Every newspaper, cup of coffee and watt of electricity will fluctuate by the min. and we will all be expert in planning our lives around submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

TechCrunch article on the Spanish newspaper/Google fiasco suggests "media companies [to] realize that there are far more efficient ways of separating visitors from their pocket change via micropayments and bitcoin"

TechCrunch article on the Spanish newspapeGoogle fiasco suggests submitted by Bittitibit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

If a newspaper can set up $0.27 micropayments per article via credit cards, how is Bitcoin needed in this area? Clearly the model works with traditional systems.

If a newspaper can set up $0.27 micropayments per article via credit cards, how is Bitcoin needed in this area? Clearly the model works with traditional systems. submitted by BitcoinAll to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Jimmy Nguyen: Bitcoin SV has introduced new business models

Jimmy Nguyen: Bitcoin SV has introduced new business models


News by Coingeek: Steve Kaaru
Bitcoin SV (BSV) has continued to surpass its peers and establish itself as the superior blockchain network. One of the reasons many have abandoned other blockchain projects for BSV is because it has introduced new business models. BSV’s low fees and massive scalability has enabled developers to create solutions and applications that open up new opportunities not available elsewhere. During the CoinGeek Seoul Conference, Jimmy Nguyen noted all these points, and revealed some of these new business models that BSV has introduced.
In his presentation, the Founding President of the Bitcoin Association looked at how the extremely low fees in BSV have enabled an ‘Earn and Use’ ecosystem, different from the ‘Buy and Hodl’ ecosystem present in other crypto projects. The low fees enable BSV users to make microtransactions which consequently introduces new business models that were previously not possible.
With BSV micropayments, users can reimagine the existing business models and create new ones that would attract more users. For instance, digital newspapers can change the monthly subscription model to one where the user pays per article or blog post. In online videos, users can pay per minute watched as opposed to paying for the whole video. For the gamers, they can pay for in-game features and items using BSV instead of the tokens that are currently in use. In social media, getting likes could translate to micropayments. The opportunities are endless.
There have been plenty of applications that have been developed to capitalize on the new business models introduced by BSV. For social media, Twetch has been a standout, with its platform allowing you to earn whenever other users share or like your content. This is in contrast to the current social media platforms which generate billions of dollars from your content through advertising.
For video streaming, Streamanity is introducing a new business model where content creators get paid in BSV for their content. The creators can offer just a few seconds of the video for free beyond which one must pay to watch. And since BSV supports microtransactions, you can pay by the second.
For file storage, Bitcoin Files allows its users to upload their content on the BSV blockchain for a fee. However, you can grant access to your files to other people who have to pay you in BSV.
In real estate, Zwesipace is capitalizing on BSV to not only improve title registries, but also to detect earthquakes using IoT devices. TonicPow, the runner up in the inaugural BSV Virtual Hackathon, is using BSV to introduce new business models in the advertising space, while WeatherSV allows users to create new business models by having reliable weather data recorded on the BSV blockchain.
Nguyen concluded, “So, the lesson of all this is that BSV, because of its really large blocks and its super massive scaling capacity, it enables the users to do lots of transactions for a very tiny fee and that means that its data ledger can be used for all types of business applications.”
submitted by GTE_IO to u/GTE_IO [link] [comments]

How Iota and Satoshipay solved the newspaper industry crisis, while no one was paying attention

TLDR; Iota and Satoshipay solved the newspaper industry crisis, by making it super simple and cheap to pay 2-3 cents to read an interesting article previously behind an prohibitive subcription paywall. 
     
Do you want to see this happen? 
 
Contact a newspaper in your country and ask them to write about Satoshipay Iota and micropayments for specific content and how it might just save the newspaper industry.   
 
Also feel free to use replies to this post to expand on the use case, but please take some kind of action towards making this happen. 
 
 
THE CASE FOR SOLVING THE NEWSPAPER CRISIS:
  (these are just my thoughts, I dont know that this will happen, i just think it will) 
   
So intentionaly or not it, back in the year 2017, Iota, together with Satoshipay, solved the newspaper industri crisis, and no one noticed, until it was to late. 
   
In 2017 Satoshipay a small it payment company, switched from using bitcoin (satoshis), to iota as payment in their micropayment system. 
   
Why you ask? Two simple words, Fees - Scalability. Blockchain has the one we don't want and doesnt have the one we want. Enter the DAG. 
   
We read news and info on the internet every day, and newspapers, before we had to buy them on paper. Now we just dont.   
 
Many papers try to survive with revenue from selling add space, and by locking some content behind subscription pay walls. We dont read those, we just dont. And newspapers are starting to understand this. Why would you have a subscribtion for something when you just want to read an interesting article now and then?   
It doesnt make any sense, handing out your information, credit card details, canceling your subscription, resubscribing etc. 
 
 
Now what if there was a way that if you saw something interesting, an article about cryptocurrencies perhaps. You could pay 2-3 cents just to read that article, simply buy clicking a button in your browser, no credit card or name details, no hazzle, and no stupid subscription.  
 
Would that not be cool?   Would you be internested in paying 2-3 cents for a newspaper article, or an article you really want to read?
No form fill-ins, no credit card details, just one click pay, and read.
For good interesting aritcles, I would be willing to pay that, if there is no hazzle.
Will newspapers understand what have happened?
  https://iota.org/ 
 
https://satoshipay.io/
Subscription doesnt work for newspapers, micropay per view does. As long as the newspapers understand this and dont get greedy, they now have the keys to their survival available.  
But if you pay 2-3 cents and read the article you want to read. Now that people will do. Thats what Iota and Satoshipay solved, and thats Enourmous, if you don't understand how Huge a deal this is. Let me say it with these words from a rather known/unknown source taken out of context, but it applies: 
 
 
" If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry." - NS  
 
 
Iota and Satoshipay - together just solved the entire newspaper industry crisis - now the question is will the industry fight this like the music industry did against new tech, or have they been humbled enough to embrace this soulution who can save their entire industry. 
 
 
Now I don't know if any newspapers are talking with Satoshipay right now, but I can tell you if they want to survive I think they should be. 
 
 
submitted by nitelight7 to IOTAmarkets [link] [comments]

Micropayments are a brilliant idea whose time has come? Then why hate on Multibit for implementing them?

So much love for micropayments.
So much hate for Multibit for implementing them.
/Bitcoin make up your mind. Which is it?
submitted by tsontar to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Mike Hearn Show: Season Finale (and Bitcoin Classic: Series Premiere)

This post debunks Mike Hearn's conspiracy theories RE Blockstream in his farewell post and points out issues with the behavior of the Bitcoin Classic hard fork and sketchy tactics of its advocates
I used to be torn on how to judge Mike Hearn. On the one hand he has done some good work with BitcoinJ, Lighthouse etc. Certainly his choice of bloom filter has had a net negative effect on the privacy of SPV users, but all in all it works as advertised.* On the other hand, he has single handedly advocated for some of the most alarming behavior changes in the Bitcoin network (e.g. redlists, coinbase reallocation, BIP101 etc...) to date. Not to mention his advocacy in the past year has degraded from any semblance of professionalism into an adversarial us-vs-them propaganda train. I do not believe his long history with the Bitcoin community justifies this adversarial attitude.
As a side note, this post should not be taken as unabated support for Bitcoin Core. Certainly the dev team is made of humans and like all humans mistakes can be made (e.g. March 2013 fork). Some have even engaged in arguably unprofessional behavior but I have not yet witnessed any explicitly malicious activity from their camp (q). If evidence to the contrary can be provided, please share it. Thankfully the development of Bitcoin Core happens more or less completely out in the open; anyone can audit and monitor the goings on. I personally check the repo at least once a day to see what work is being done. I believe that the regular committers are genuinely interested in the overall well being of the Bitcoin network and work towards the common goal of maintaining and improving Core and do their best to juggle the competing interests of the community that depends on them. That is not to say that they are The Only Ones; for the time being they have stepped up to the plate to do the heavy lifting. Until that changes in some way they have my support.
The hard line that some of the developers have drawn in regards to the block size has caused a serious rift and this write up is a direct response to oft-repeated accusations made by Mike Hearn and his supporters about members of the core development team. I have no affiliations or connection with Blockstream, however I have met a handful of the core developers, both affiliated and unaffiliated with Blockstream.
Mike opens his farewell address with his pedigree to prove his opinion's worth. He masterfully washes over the mountain of work put into improving Bitcoin Core over the years by the "small blockians" to paint the picture that Blockstream is stonewalling the development of Bitcoin. The folks who signed Greg's scalability road map have done some of the most important, unsung work in Bitcoin. Performance improvements, privacy enhancements, increased reliability, better sync times, mempool management, bandwidth reductions etc... all those things are thanks to the core devs and the research community (e.g. Christian Decker), many of which will lead to a smoother transition to larger blocks (e.g. libsecp256k1).(1) While ignoring previous work and harping on the block size exclusively, Mike accuses those same people who have spent countless hours working on the protocol of trying to turn Bitcoin into something useless because they remain conservative on a highly contentious issue that has tangible effects on network topology.
The nature of this accusation is characteristic of Mike's attitude over the past year which marked a shift in the block size debate from a technical argument to a personal one (in tandem with DDoS and censorship in /Bitcoin and general toxicity from both sides). For example, Mike claimed that sidechains constitutes a conflict of interest, as Blockstream employees are "strongly incentivized to ensure [bitcoin] works poorly and never improves" despite thousands of commits to the contrary. Many of these commits are top down rewrites of low level Bitcoin functionality, not chump change by any means. I am not just "counting commits" here. Anyways, Blockstream's current client base consists of Bitcoin exchanges whose future hinges on the widespread adoption of Bitcoin. The more people that use Bitcoin the more demand there will be for sidechains to service the Bitcoin economy. Additionally, one could argue that if there was some sidechain that gained significant popularity (hundreds of thousands of users), larger blocks would be necessary to handle users depositing and withdrawing funds into/from the sidechain. Perhaps if they were miners and core devs at the same time then a conflict of interest on small blocks would be a more substantive accusation (create artificial scarcity to increase tx fees). The rational behind pricing out the Bitcoin "base" via capacity constraint to increase their business prospects as a sidechain consultancy is contrived and illogical. If you believe otherwise I implore you to share a detailed scenario in your reply so I can see if I am missing something.
Okay, so back to it. Mike made the right move when Core would not change its position, he forked Core and gave the community XT. The choice was there, most miners took a pass. Clearly there was not consensus on Mike's proposed scaling road map or how big blocks should be rolled out. And even though XT was a failure (mainly because of massive untested capacity increases which were opposed by some of the larger pools whose support was required to activate the 75% fork), it has inspired a wave of implementation competition. It should be noted that the censorship and attacks by members of /Bitcoin is completely unacceptable, there is no excuse for such behavior. While theymos is entitled to run his subreddit as he sees fit, if he continues to alienate users there may be a point of mass exodus following some significant event in the community that he tries to censor. As for the DDoS attackers, they should be ashamed of themselves; it is recommended that alt. nodes mask their user agents.
Although Mike has left the building, his alarmist mindset on the block size debate lives on through Bitcoin Classic, an implementation which is using a more subtle approach to inspire adoption, as jtoomim cozies up with miners to get their support while appealing to the masses with a call for an adherence to Satoshi's "original vision for Bitcoin." That said, it is not clear that he is competent enough to lead the charge on the maintenance/improvement of the Bitcoin protocol. That leaves most of the heavy lifting up to Gavin, as Jeff has historically done very little actual work for Core. We are thus in a potentially more precarious situation then when we were with XT, as some Chinese miners are apparently "on board" for a hard fork block size increase. Jtoomim has expressed a willingness to accept an exceptionally low (60 or 66%) consensus threshold to activate the hard fork if necessary. Why? Because of the lost "opportunity cost" of the threshold not being reached.(c) With variance my guess is that a lucky 55% could activate that 60% threshold. That's basically two Chinese miners. I don't mean to attack him personally, he is just willing to go down a path that requires the support of only two major Chinese mining pools to activate his hard fork. As a side effect of the latency issues of GFW, a block size increase might increase orphan rate outside of GFW, profiting the Chinese pools. With a 60% threshold there is no way for miners outside of China to block that hard fork.
To compound the popularity of this implementation, the efforts of Mike, Gavin and Jeff have further blinded many within the community to the mountain of effort that core devs have put in. And it seems to be working, as they are beginning to successfully ostracize the core devs beyond the network of "true big block-believers." It appears that Chinese miners are getting tired of the debate (and with it Core) and may shift to another implementation over the issue.(d) Some are going around to mining pools and trying to undermine Core's position in the soft vs. hard fork debate. These private appeals to the miner community are a concern because there is no way to know if bad information is being passed on with the intent to disrupt Core's consensus based approach to development in favor of an alternative implementation controlled (i.e. benevolent dictator) by those appealing directly to miners. If the core team is reading this, you need to get out there and start pushing your agenda so the community has a better understanding of what you all do every day and how important the work is. Get some fancy videos up to show the effects of block size increase and work on reading materials that are easy for non technically minded folk to identify with and get behind.
The soft fork debate really highlights the disingenuity of some of these actors. Generally speaking, soft forks are easier on network participants who do not regularly keep up with the network's software updates or have forked the code for personal use and are unable to upgrade in time, while hard forks require timely software upgrades if the user hopes to maintain consensus after a hardfork. The merits of that argument come with heavy debate. However, more concerning is the fact that hard forks require central planning and arguably increase the power developers have over changes to the protocol.(2) In contrast, the 'signal of readiness' behavior of soft forks allows the network to update without any hardcoded flags and developer oversight. Issues with hard forks are further compounded by activation thresholds, as soft forks generally require 95% consensus while Bitcoin Classic only calls for 60-75% consensus, exposing network users to a greater risk of competing chains after the fork. Mike didn't want to give the Chinese any more power, but now the post XT fallout has pushed the Chinese miners right into the Bitcoin Classic drivers seat.
While a net split did happen briefly during the BIP66 soft fork, imagine that scenario amplified by miners who do not agree to hard fork changes while controlling 25-40% of the networks hashing power. Two actively mined chains with competing interests, the Doomsday Scenario. With a 5% miner hold out on a soft fork, the fork will constantly reorg and malicious transactions will rarely have more than one or two confirmations.(b) During a soft fork, nodes can protect themselves from double spends by waiting for extra confirmations when the node alerts the user that a ANYONECANSPEND transaction has been seen. Thus, soft forks give Bitcoin users more control over their software (they can choose to treat a softfork as a soft fork or a soft fork as a hardfork) which allows for greater flexibility on upgrade plans for those actively maintaining nodes and other network critical software. (2) Advocating for a low threshold hard forks is a step in the wrong direction if we are trying to limit the "central planning" of any particular implementation. However I do not believe that is the main concern of the Bitcoin Classic devs.
To switch gears a bit, Mike is ironically concerned China "controls" Bitcoin, but wanted to implement a block size increase that would only increase their relative control (via increased orphans). Until the p2p wire protocol is significantly improved (IBLT, etc...), there is very little room (if any at all) to raise the block size without significantly increasing orphan risk. This can be easily determined by looking at jtoomim's testnet network data that passed through normal p2p network, not the relay network.(3) In the mean time this will only get worse if no one picks up the slack on the relay network that Matt Corallo is no longer maintaining. (4)
Centralization is bad regardless of the block size, but Mike tries to conflate the centralization issues with the Blockstream block size side show for dramatic effect. In retrospect, it would appear that the initial lack of cooperation on a block size increase actually staved off increases in orphan risk. Unfortunately, this centralization metric will likely increase with the cooperation of Chinese miners and Bitcoin Classic if major strides to reduce orphan rates are not made.
Mike also manages to link to a post from the ProHashing guy RE forever-stuck transactions, which has been shown to generally be the result of poorly maintained/improperly implemented wallet software.(6) Ultimately Mike wants fees to be fixed despite the fact you can't enforce fixed fees in a system that is not centrally planned. Miners could decide to raise their minimum fees even when blocks are >1mb, especially when blocks become too big to reliably propagate across the network without being orphaned. What is the marginal cost for a tx that increases orphan risk by some %? That is a question being explored with flexcaps. Even with larger blocks, if miners outside the GFW fear orphans they will not create the bigger blocks without a decent incentive; in other words, even with a larger block size you might still end up with variable fees. Regardless, it is generally understood that variable fees are not preferred from a UX standpoint, but developers of Bitcoin software do not have the luxury of enforcing specific fees beyond basic defaults hardcoded to prevent cheap DoS attacks. We must expose the user to just enough information so they can make an informed decision without being overwhelmed. Hard? Yes. Impossible. No.
Shifting gears, Mike states that current development progress via segwit is an empty ploy, despite the fact that segwit comes with not only a marginal capacity increase, but it also plugs up major malleability vectors, allows pruning blocks for historical data and a bunch of other fun stuff. It's a huge win for unconfirmed transactions (which Mike should love). Even if segwit does require non-negligible changes to wallet software and Bitcoin Core (500 lines LoC), it allows us time to improve block relay (IBLT, weak blocks) so we can start raising the block size without fear of increased orphan rate. Certainly we can rush to increase the block size now and further exacerbate the China problem, or we can focus on the "long play" and limit negative externalities.
And does segwit help the Lightning Network? Yes. Is that something that indicates a Blockstream conspiracy? No. Comically, the big blockians used to criticize Blockstream for advocating for LN when there was no one working on it, but now that it is actively being developed, the tune has changed and everything Blockstream does is a conspiracy to push for Bitcoin's future as a dystopic LN powered settlement network. Is LN "the answer?" Obviously not, most don't actually think that. How it actually works in practice is yet to be seen and there could be unforseen emergent characteristics that make it less useful for the average user than originally thought. But it's a tool that should be developed in unison with other scaling measures if only for its usefulness for instant txs and micropayments.
Regardless, the fundamental divide rests on ideological differences that we all know well. Mike is fine with the miner-only validation model for nodes and is willing to accept some miner centralization so long as he gets the necessary capacity increases to satisfy his personal expectations for the immediate future of Bitcoin. Greg and co believe that a distributed full node landscape helps maintain a balance of decentralization in the face of the miner centralization threat. For example, if you have 10 miners who are the only sources for blockchain data then you run the risk of undetectable censorship, prolific sybil attacks, and no mechanism for individuals to validate the network without trusting a third party. As an analogy, take the tor network: you use it with an expectation of privacy while understanding that the multi-hop nature of the routing will increase latency. Certainly you could improve latency by removing a hop or two, but with it you lose some privacy. Does tor's high latency make it useless? Maybe for watching Netflix, but not for submitting leaked documents to some newspaper. I believe this is the philosophy held by most of the core development team.
Mike does not believe that the Bitcoin network should cater to this philosophy and any activity which stunts the growth of on-chain transactions is a direct attack on the protocol. Ultimately however I believe Greg and co. also want Bitcoin to scale on-chain transactions as much as possible. They believe that in order for Bitcoin to increase its capacity while adhering to acceptable levels of decentralization, much work needs to be done. It's not a matter of if block size will be increased, but when. Mike has confused this adherence to strong principles of decentralization as disingenuous and a cover up for a dystopic future of Bitcoin where sidechains run wild with financial institutions paying $40 per transaction. Again, this does not make any sense to me. If banks are spending millions to co-op this network what advantage does a decentralized node landscape have to them?
There are a few roads that the community can take now: one where we delay a block size increase while improvements to the protocol are made (with the understanding that some users may have to wait a few blocks to have their transaction included, fees will be dependent on transaction volume, and transactions <$1 may be temporarily cost ineffective) so that when we do increase the block size, orphan rate and node drop off are insignificant. Another is the immediate large block size increase which possibly leads to a future Bitcoin which looks nothing like it does today: low numbers of validating nodes, heavy trust in centralized network explorers and thus a more vulnerable network to government coercion/general attack. Certainly there are smaller steps for block size increases which might not be as immediately devastating, and perhaps that is the middle ground which needs to be trodden to appease those who are emotionally invested in a bigger block size. Combined with segwit however, max block sizes could reach unacceptable levels. There are other scenarios which might play out with competing chains etc..., but in that future Bitcoin has effectively failed.
As any technology that requires maintenance and human interaction, Bitcoin will require politicking for decision making. Up until now that has occurred via the "vote download" for software which implements some change to the protocol. I believe this will continue to be the most robust of options available to us. Now that there is competition, the Bitcoin Core community can properly advocate for changes to the protocol that it sees fit without being accused of co-opting the development of Bitcoin. An ironic outcome to the situation at hand. If users want their Bitcoins to remain valuable, they must actively determine which developers are most competent and have their best interests at heart. So far the core dev community has years of substantial and successful contributions under its belt, while the alt implementations have a smattering of developers who have not yet publicly proven (besides perhaps Gavin--although his early mistakes with block size estimates is concerning) they have the skills and endurance necessary to maintain a full node implementation. Perhaps now it is time that we focus on the personalities who many want to trust Bitcoin's future. Let us see if they can improve the speed at which signatures are validated by 7x. Or if they can devise privacy preserving protocols like Confidential Transactions. Or can they figure out ways to improve traversal times across a merkle tree? Can they implement HD functionality into a wallet without any coin-crushing bugs? Can they successfully modularize their implementation without breaking everything? If so, let's welcome them with open arms.
But Mike is at R3 now, which seems like a better fit for him ideologically. He can govern the rules with relative impunity and there is not a huge community of open source developers, researchers and enthusiasts to disagree with. I will admit, his posts are very convincing at first blush, but ultimately they are nothing more than a one sided appeal to the those in the community who have unrealistic or incomplete understandings of the technical challenges faced by developers maintaining a consensus critical, validation-heavy, distributed system that operates within an adversarial environment. Mike always enjoyed attacking Blockstream, but when survey his past behavior it becomes clear that his motives were not always pure. Why else would you leave with such a nasty, public farewell?
To all the XT'ers, btc'ers and so on, I only ask that you show some compassion when you critique the work of Bitcoin Core devs. We understand you have a competing vision for the scaling of Bitcoin over the next few years. They want Bitcoin to scale too, you just disagree on how and when it should be done. Vilifying and attacking the developers only further divides the community and scares away potential future talent who may want to further the Bitcoin cause. Unless you can replace the folks doing all this hard work on the protocol or can pay someone equally as competent, please think twice before you say something nasty.
As for Mike, I wish you the best at R3 and hope that you can one day return to the Bitcoin community with a more open mind. It must hurt having your software out there being used by so many but your voice snuffed. Hopefully one day you can return when many of the hard problems are solved (e.g. reduced propagation delays, better access to cheap bandwidth) and the road to safe block size increases have been paved.
(*) https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf
(q) https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6
(b) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012026.html
(c) https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/1#issuecomment-170299027
(d) http://toom.im/jameshilliard_classic_PR_1.html
(0) http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/06
(1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors
(2) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012014.html
(3) https://toom.im/blocktime (beware of heavy website)
(4) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=766190.msg13510513#msg13510513
(5) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10774773
(6) http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=573
edit, fixed some things.
edit 2, tried to clarify some more things and remove some personal bias thanks to astro
submitted by citboins to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

If paywalls accepted bitcoin, I'd be more likely to pay them.

After reading about the Chicago-Sun Times, I decided to write to my local newspaper about the idea. Here's what I wrote.
To whom it may concern:
I've been a long time reader of the LA Times. I enjoy the articles, but often get turned off on the paywalls. Though I've found ways around them with basic functionality included on all common browsers, my desire to stick exclusively around the site for its content has waned.
The fee to become a member is nominal, but my willingness to provide credit card information isn't. I never really considered this a deterrent to my purchases online, but since I've made payment using Bitcoin elsewhere, I'm beginning to note this difference, and would be more liberal with my purchases when it comes to paywalls.
The Chicago Sun Times recently ran an experiment with micropayments with Bitcoin in partnership with the payment processor Coinbase, and I understand it to have been successful. With Coinbase, retailers have the option to convert Bitcoin immediately into fiat currency, deflecting any risk on their part.
Please look into this as an option to increase revenue and readership, a way to reduce transaction fees, and perhaps a way to create buzz around the paper.
submitted by burritofanatic to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Formerly Unrealistic Business Ideas Made Possible by Bitcoin

Last week I finally took the time to research Bitcoin and its features. Even after learning just the basics, I was fully convinced that Bitcoin represents a potentially world-changing technology, and I've had a lot of fun recently thinking up business models that are currently impractical but that are likely to become workable in a world with a deep cryptocurrency infrastructure. Here are a few:
We're still in the very early stages of infrastructure development and none of these ideas are currently practical in any scalable way, but I'll be shocked if we don't see them in the next ten years, whether implemented with Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency that doesn't exist yet. Anyway, it's extremely exciting to watch this technology develop in realtime and I can't wait to see what's around the next corner.
submitted by BTCthrowaway4 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BitCoin for News Services

Over the past few months I have been working with a small team on a flipboard style mobile application. It presents readers with articles they are interested in, and if they like it, they can tip the author via alt coins (Dogecoin). The goal is to expand this so that you can do micropayments for major newspapers such as WSJ and NYTimes. I don't know if they will get on board, but I can certainly see something like that come about.
I wanted to know what are your thoughts on this? Do you like it? Have you heard of competitors? Do you want to help out?
BitCoin needs to be better mobilized and micropayments is one way. Id love to even hear iterations of this idea. Lets get the world to see the real value in BTC!
submitted by itsalidoe to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Table] IAmA: I was a professional password cracker who taught government agents who's now working on a secure distributed communications & computation platform with bitcoin instead of upvotes. AMA!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2014-05-03
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Questions Answers
a more serious question, what is password cracking like? Bruteforcing hashes, looking through source code for vulnerabilities, doing advanced maths or something fourth? First I'd try to figure out if the software was merely using access denial or encryption. With access denial, the data isn't encrypted, but the software won't show you the data without the password. For purposes of criminal forensics, you're not allowed to change the data in any way for it to be admissible in court, but getting access to the file before you have a password can often be helpful. To figure that out, I'd just look at the file in a hex editor; if I could read it, it wasn't encrypted. The next easy step is to scan the program for cryptographic constants; these are things like s-boxes or tables of rotation constants or such that tell me what crypto functions, if any, are being used. For example, if I see 637c777b anywhere, I know it's probably using AES. If I see 77073096, that's a CRC32. If I see 67452301, it's using MD5. After that I'd use a debugger and a program like IDA Pro to start at the point where you type the password and figure out what the program does with it. This is what often took the most time and was the most tedious. Early versions of MS Access, for instance, just XORed the password with a fixed constant; anyone could break those passwords immediately. The toughest one that I was able to break was the encryption on WinZip; it was much better than most stuff I ran into, but still weak enough that I could break it. That was the one I enjoyed the most, like an extra-challenging Sudoku or something.
The hash function wasn't cryptographically strong, so I was able to run a lot of it backwards and get a enough constraints on the input to skip most possibilities. What is this process called if I wanted to learn about it in an academic setting? Cryptanalysis.
WinZip; it was much better than most stuff I ran into Is it any better than 7Zip? My attack was on the old encryption method. WinZip has since upgraded to AES, like 7-Zip. The only way to attack an archive made by a recent version of either of these is with a dictionary attack, trying every password.
What was the biggest password you ever cracked? Nowadays, most software companies use strong crypto, so the difficulty of cracking the password increases exponentially with the length. Back in the late 90s, it was mostly "roll your own", so the strength depended a lot more on the software than the password chosen.
That said, the password I was most pleased with was a 60-character randomly chosen password on a WinZip file using the ciphertext-only attack that later got published.
Was the content worth the effort? What was the content? The content was irrelevant to me; the fact that I had broken the encryption so thoroughly on such an important file format was the exciting bit. When it was in beta, the FBI started sending us files with suspected child porn for us to open. Thankfully I never had to look at any of it---that was someone else's job---but it felt good to know that I was able to help with that. Once we integrated it into the toolkit, of course, the FBI would just use our software themselves.
Now, though, I think that it's more important that people be taught what is right and have freedom---even if such drimes still exist---than to have a society in which every activity is so policed that crime is impossible. I think we should make it hard for the government to do such enormous, sweeping surveillance as we've discovered they've been doing.
If there's sufficient evidence to suspect someone of a crime, the government has plenty of resources to target that individual, and no software will prevent them getting the information they want. Splicious, if it is funded, will help in preventing surveilllance at national scales.
It's funny how no one seems to be responding to the thing you're actually talking about... it seems to me you're raising awareness about splicious. Can you say more about that? EDIT: I need to make clear that it doesn't fully exist yet! We need money to continue to make it real.
As I wrote above, it's a platform for encouraging the creation and curation of content. The idea is to reward both those who create content and those who share it. You may have seen that picture of handing out Facebook likes to 3rd world kids; merely "liking" something or upvoting it doesn't actually help somebody make a living. So all likes/upvotes have real money behind them in this system. The originator of content gets 90% of each upvote, while the remaining 10% is distributed down the chain of resharers to the donator.
We want artists and musicians to use it, but also scientists, authors, and journalists. We think the journalists will be particularly interested both because of the potential to get supported directly in the wake of digital media, but also because of the security features we intend to implement, like perfect forward secrecy.
We hope scientists will like it, because big academic publishers like Elsevier charge tens of millions of dollars for bundled access to their journals and have something like a 36% profit margin. The scientists write and review the articles and edit the journals for free; Elsevier turns around and charges them for the privilege. Splicious would allow people to set up electronic journals quickly, while contributions go directly to the authors and the editors.
Could you inbox me my password if you wanted or felt the need? That would require getting Reddit's collection of password hashes. It would take some effort, but probably a lot more than would be worth my while.
Well, it used to be easier. Wow! Yeah, hopefully they learned something after that. :P.
Could you be a very rich man if you used your powers for evil? I could have in the 90s. I think the FBI are a lot better at dealing with crime on the internet now than they were then.
Hi, I'm a math/CS undergraduate and find this stuff fascinating. However, I haven't a clue how to get started. Any reccomendations on how to get into password cracking and hacking? As to your specific topics, the days of easy password cracking are largely over: any software worth spending money on will use strong crypto. The best one can usually do is a dictionary attack distributed over many computers.
Awesome! What is your ed background? When I got the job I was getting my undergrad degree in physics. I went on to get a MSc and have just finished my PhD.
How much were you taught on the job vs what you had learned through self study? All of the math I learned in school or from Schneier's Applied Cryptography. I taught myself the rudiments of programming as a kid and all my electives at university were computer science classes. I learned to read assembly code on the job.
What would you say is the most lucrative area of infosec (both for black and white hats)? If you want to make enormous amounts of money, you start a company and get bought out or have a successful IPO. That's very risky, though; if you want stable good money in infosec, go join Google's security team: I did and loved it!
Are you employed now by Google? No, I left last year to start working on splicious. I'd like to keep doing so, but we need funding!
Whats this splicious you keep referring to? It's a distributed secure communications and computation platform. It has features to encourage the creation and curation of new content, but is intended to be a general purpose secure distributed computation platform.
The computation framework is based on pi calculus; I've written a paper with Greg Meredith and Sophia Drossopolou showing that we can use Caires' sspatial/behavioral types as a security policy language and let the compiler check that the implementation fits the policy. (TL; DR: We can prove that we don't have security flaws of various kinds.)
Are you Hackers or War Games fan? I loved it when you nuked Las Vegas. Suitably biblical ending to the place, don't you think?
Have you ever hacked people? Not without their permission.
That sounds a bit weird. Hahahaha. It's not much weirder than tattooing: Link to io9.com
Of course they still had to get the hashes somewhere, but there are some pretty powerful tools in the public domain these days, who knows what is behind the curtains in the federal side of the house...(proposed quantum computing password cracking for instance) People simply don't have the ability to remember passwords that are strong enough to resist the password crackers. If your service has the option to use two-factor authentication, use it; when attackers steal gmail accounts, the first thing they do is turn it on, because it makes it virtually impossible for the owner to get it back. If your service doesn't have 2-factor auth, use a long passphrase. Here's some math: if you just use lowercase letters and have a 16-character password, there are around 1022 passwords to try. If you start using numbers, too, there are around 1024, so a hundred times harder. But if instead you double the length of the password, there are around 1044, which is a sextillion times harder. Quantum computation is certainly interesting to the NSA, but the technology isn't up to code cracking yet; scientists are just at the edge of beating the error bound necessary for quantum computations with more than a handful of qubits. Link to www.news.ucsb.edu
How could a regular person like me learn the basics of this? What did you mean by "this"? Reverse engineering, password cracking, or secure distributed communications?
All of it and where should one start? I've done custom rainbow salt sables and attempted wpa2 attacks for fun and cracking hashes using Cain and Able. For reverse engineering, woodmann.com is the place to be. Get a copy of OllyDBG and IDA Pro; there is an older version available for free. Here's a reasonable intro to some of the techniques: Link to yurichev.com
Actual question how good is router security with passwords for example can you or have you hacked a router (guessing default passwords don't count)? I haven't ever tried breaking router passwords; I have my own router, so I don't need to use anyone else's.
Are you the guy that made this video: Link to www.youtube.com ? Yep. In addition to the content creation and curation stuff, there's also a notion of controlling who gets access to personal information. In the video, I drew how Alice can prevent Bob from knowing her name or address while still proving that she's 21.
But we need money to make it real.
Are you in fundraising mode? Are you doing crowd funding? Do you have a site? Yes, we're doing crowd funding. The site is linked in the description.
How is there such a huge disconnect between you and I? I send hours on the computer and can't do shit with it other than reddit and excel spreadsheets. How do you get into it? Is it a lot of reading? How does it work? I think you become good at doing what you spend time on, and you tend to spend time on things that you like doing. I learned this stuff because it made me happy. I get a thrill out of this sort of thing, so I keep coming back.
That said, with enough hard work, you can become good enough at something that it's no longer a drag: playing piano for the first few years sucks. Who wants to sit there plunking out "Mary had a little lamb"? But once you have the skill to actually read music and play it, then you're free to explore all your musical tastes. After you've played a lot of the music you love, you get a feeling for chord changes and what sounds good to you, so you can improvise your own music.
It's the same way with math and programming: there's some hard stuff at the start, but once you become good enough at it, you can start behaving like an artist and do your own thing.
The equivalent of learning "Mary had a little lamb" is introductory programming sites like KhanAcademy or codeacademy or code.org or a bazillion others.
What do you think of the new NSA, using the Patriot Act? I think the Patriot Act traded an enormous amount of liberty for what turned out to be virtually no increase in security.
Is that the same platform that this ex-Googler was talking about in this video Link to www.youtube.com. Yes, that's Vlad Patryshev. He was one of the guys who made Orkut. He was actually really excited about splicious and said, "I've been waiting for this since FidoNet."
Thanks. I'll look into all that. Lol, well that's a different story, a lucky one too. So you had no knowledge or experience with programming and they just hired you? What degree were you going to go after if you went to collee? Oh yeah, did you end up going to college after all or you just stuck with the job and learned from them? I had plenty of programming experience, but no crypto experience. I couldn't decide for a while between computer science and physics. Eventually I compromised and got a degree in applied physics; basically, all my electives were CS. I finished my bachelor's degree, then lost the job when the dot com bubble burst, went to New Zealand and got a MSc in CS, then started a PhD but ran out of money, went to work for Google's security team and started working on the PhD part time. I worked there for six years, then quit to work on splicious. I just finished the thesis and will defend later this year.
I might be late to the party, but what do you think of the XKCD password comic? This is the method I'm currently using with the help of Make Me A Passwords generator. It's spot on. When given the option, use long phrases rather than gibberish. LastPass can manage your online passwords by generating very long gibberish but only require you to use something memorable.
You actually suggest LastPass over KeePass(X)? I was using LastPass as an example of the genre, like how the southern US refers to any carbonated soft drink as "coke". I haven't made an extensive study of the offerings.
Are you Jesus? 'cause you look a lot like him. I was babysitting with another guy for a group of moms once, and when one of the moms dropped off her young kid---maybe four or five years old---he got really big-eyed and nervous. I thought he was afraid of the beard and hair: sometimes people would cross to the other side of the street when they saw me coming. So I invited him in, showed him the toys, and we all played and had a good time.
When his mom came to pick him up, he ran over and said, "Jesus is fun!"
Hey Mike, my understanding is that you've built a distributed platform and also adding on bitcoin support so that every post you make on splicious could potentially generate revenue. i would say that it's a new take on an alternate virtual economy and want to try as soon as they allow public use. are you planning to add some kind of reputation system to it? say, if i want to look for something a'la craig's list style rather than post my poetry? We've been thinking about reputation systems, but don't have any firm plans. Part of the problem with reputation systems online is that people do "pump & dump", using their reputation to steal something. If anyone has ideas or references about fighting this, please PM me.
Was most of your work just using parallelism brute forcing, or did you look for vulnerabilities in encryption standards. Also what is your opinion on the vulnerabilities of dual eliptic curve cryptography? Nearly all of my work was cryptanalysis of the relatively weak cryptography that was prevalent in the late '90s. We started turning to parallelism when MS Word improved its crypto to the 40-bit stuff that was the limit for software you could export.
The vulnerability in the PRNG for dual ECC was clearly inserted by the NSA and weakened everyone's crypto, even the US military and government's. I'm surprised that there's not more outcry from the other government organizations.
Last pass gotta remember that one. The o e thing I'm worried about though is my email is under yahoo and I've heard they are famous with being hacked because of crappy protection programs or leaks even is this true? Looks like Yahoo has 2-factor auth available. If you turn it on, then even if crackers do figure out your password, they won't be able to log in with it because they don't have your phone. That's the single best thing you can do.
Can you explain this like you would to someone who's never heard of hacking? There's no password you can remember that would stand up to modern cracking software. If you use a long passphrase, you might stand a chance. 2-factor auth is the only way to stay safe.
Can you tell me how to turn it on in a pm please. I'll just put it here, since everyone ought to know this: Link to www.zonealarm.com
What's your computelaptop specs? I had a Macbook Pro, like most of Google security team, and got myself another when I left. It has all the benefits of unix with really nice hardware and good suport.
What makes one password cracker different than another? Edit: Wonderful beard. Generally it's how well they take advantage of the parallelism in the GPU. And thanks!
Do you feel That bitcoin as a currency will make it even with all of the theft and ease at which people are being hacked and having coins stolen. I have no particular attachment to bitcoin as a currency. Ben Laurie, for example, has some excellent points about how to keep bitcoin secure, you either have to trust the software authors or spend half of all computing power for the rest of eternity. If you're going to trust people, there are much more efficient ways to mint money. Link to www.links.org
For our purposes, bitcoin provides a fairly simple micropayments service; any other distributed currency would probably work just as well.
We also don't store the wallets ourselves; we use blockchain.info.
I feel the success will be based on micro payments. IE reading a Wall Street journal article for a .05 or .10 fee and not having to buy the whole newspaper or article. Just my 2 cents.. Exactly. A journalist would write an article and share it with WSJ. WSJ would reshare it, and readers could support the journalist by contributing a mBTC. WSJ would get a cut and the journalist would get the lion's share.
So how hard would it to be to break a password of say"iFuCkInGHate2001!!" If crackers get hold of the file with the password hashes, nearly all passwords will be cracked, even quite long ones like yours. A similar password (18 printable chars) that has been hashed once with SHA with no salt would take less than an hour to crack on a single PC. Adding salt makes it harder to build tables where you can just look up the password instantly, but no slower to just brute force.
People REALLY need to use 2-factor auth to be secure.
So what can a person like me who doesn't know much on how to make a password more secure, except making it super long and complex to do to " feel safer" of not getting hacked. First, choose reputable services like GMail, where they take security very seriously. A cracker who can't get to the database of password hashes is forced to attempt to log in repeatedly, which can be detected and throttled to a safe rate.
Second, use 2-factor auth if it's available.
Third, use something like LastPass that generates a long random password for each site and stores it encrypted under a single password that you remember. You never type that password into anything online.
I bet your computer is awesome It's a Macbook Pro.
Last updated: 2014-05-09 00:53 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

Why Information Goods and Markets are a Poor Match

In numerous recent conversations on information goods, market economics, the interaction between the two, and negative aspects ranging from Internet advertising to DRM to weaponized viral clickbait have arisin. And, by the way, the collapse of much of the old-school newspaper, publishing, and books industries.
In particular, there's a belief that "the market" will sort all of this out.
It won't and doesn't for a number of reasons particular to information goods, though shared by some others.
Market mechanisms work best where goods are uniform (either individually or on aggregate average), their qualities are readily determined (or again tend to average out well), where the fixed costs of production are low and marginal costs of production high (relative to one another), and externalities, both positive and negative, are small relative to market price.
George Akerloff's "The Market for Lemons" illustrates several of these points well. Though I suspect the critical reader will want me to provide further references ... and I probably should. Fundamentally the problem is one of information asymmetry.
Information goods violate virtually all these assumptions.

Why Micropayments Cannot Work

A tiresomely frequent suggestion is "but micropayments" (to which we've now got the added tedium of "but Bitcoin!!!").
There are a number of other arguments against micropayments. I believe Charlie Stross has one of the better set.

Adapting Information to Markets

There are ways to make information more amenable to markets, with one of the traditionally popular mechanisms being to bundle up collections of it and sell those bundles over time -- as subscriptions to magazines, newspapers, or cable television channels. One of the characteristics of the World Wide Web and Internet are to break down what had been existing boundaries and toll-taking gateways through those old structures. My general feeling is that re-establishing a new set of gateways, and quite possibly simply including media revenue recovery in the general tax base, and compensating based on measures of usage scaled by type, may be a way forward. See Phil Hunt of Pirate Party UK's broadband tax proposal and my own Universal Content Syndication proposals.
Above and beyond that, information benefits in many ways by access to aggregations. Meta-analysis, text-based search, independent exploration of papers and research (my own occupation of much of the past two years), and more. Google's Ngram viewer (part of Google Books) is a service which isn't possible with out first copying a vast archive of printed material, in this case dating to the year 1500. Similarly search engines require copying of a substantial portion of the public Web.

Bypassing the Market

Increasingly, those who have the skills and inclination to pursue such research are not affiliated with formal institutions or research centers. Both affiliated and unaffiliated researchers increasingly make use of tools such as Library Genesis or reddit's /scholar.
submitted by dredmorbius to dredmorbius [link] [comments]

Lightning Wordpress Publisher and BTCPay ( Bitcoin ... Brave Browser Finally Unleashes Bitcoin Micropayments (The Cryptoverse #85) The Problem(s) with Micropayments for the News and Media. Bitcoin News 8 - Industry of micropayments - YouTube Bitcoin Regulation -- Bitwall Micropayments -- Roger Ver Interviewed

Micropayments. To say the likes of Bitcoin isn’t well invested may seem churlish, considering the crypto-giant hit a valu e of $19,783 in 2017, but this wasn’t the intention of its creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. Nakamoto’s dream was to create an alternative currency that was capable of superseding our existing monetary systems. For the dream to become a reality, cryptocurrencies would need ... Blockonomi recent released an interesting article titled Understanding Micropayments & Their Role in the Web 3.0. This is a summary. Bitcoin’s Lightning Network (LN) has made micropayments quite popular. In Web 3.0, which may be the future of the internet, micropayments may be able to bring about changes such as new monetization strategies, content platforms, paywalls, and the like. Accepting bitcoin payments is one of many ways we are working to stay digitally focused.” If micropayments do catch on, it will probably develop from online tipping. Some of that already exists ... Blendle is one example. Beginning in 2014, the company offered a pay-per-article newspaper aggregation service for content written in English, Dutch, and German. However, Blendle announced in June 2019 that the company would pivot away from the micropayments model to focus on premium subscriptions. Executives cited low profitability as the main ... Bitcoin Micropayments with Lightning. With Bitcoin Lightning, small amounts can be settled successfully. These business models will benefit

[index] [23750] [43840] [3464] [22560] [19197] [41960] [17829] [48432] [48898] [28070]

Lightning Wordpress Publisher and BTCPay ( Bitcoin ...

This integration between BTCPay Server and Lightning Publisher for WordPress allows you to hide your articles behind a paywall where the reader is required t... Why micropayments for particularly news content will never work...It's psychology. •Man/Journalist working in NYC Media Industry. Day 6 Clay Shirky's Twitter... Micropayments are small transactions, that enable friction-less and comparatively small payments for content online. Micropayment business models before the invention of Bitcoin had been ... August 6, 2013 -- Ontario, Canada -- I've got a dead cat bounce in my currency basket and this has drastically improved my well-being. Here are Today's MadBits: Bitcoin Prices continued to range ... ⚡️Live ⚡️Tesla Podcast (Elon Musk) Company News, Bearish Bİtcoin, Liquidation, future Tesla Promotion 8,632 watching Live now tilepay Internet of Things Micropayments Platform ...

#