/btc was created to foster and support free and open Bitcoin discussion about cryptocurrency, Bitcoin news, and exclusive AMA (Ask Me Anything) interviews from top Bitcoin and cryptocurrency leaders. Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet. A distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever. Learn more about Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, cryptocurrency, and more.
PSA: Reminder that Github is not the only Bitcoin Source Repo
Github (@Microsoft) is a great site, and they have, for the most part, been pretty laissez-faire about repos that the "powers that be" might object to. But any skeptical mind should always "what if" anything as important as the Bitcoin-Core codebase. Assuming you've done all the basic stuff like build-from-source and run your own node, now might be a good time to add some mirrors to your list of git remotes. The best mirror I can think of is probably the onion mirror maintained by @laanwj (github). If there are some others that are replicated regularly, please help me collect the list. If we "start from scratch" I'll add the github-git as the default remote named "origin" and add the onion-git as the remote named "onion". Of course you can change the names if they are too close for your liking.
Initially clone the repo from github (github-git -> "origin")
# This will create "origin" and checkout "master" git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git cd bitcoin
git checkout master git branch -vv # Should see origin/master and onion/master at the same commit Now if Github does any shenanigans with the repo, you can pull from the onion repo. It should be noted that the onion repo is read-only, but I'm sure if anything goes wierd there will be about a half dozen new repos pop up. But at least this one is an authoritative source. Onion URL References:
LN & other L2 solutions are being developed at a staggering pace but Bitcoin Core is not slowing down! - Git(hub) monthly commits 2009-2020 | Source: gitgitlog.com/bitcoin/bitcoin, formerly gitgitrun.com
04-30 19:04 - '“This next part's my favorite part 'cause its time to shine”. Someone needs to make a funny BTC clip with the Git up. Like the In the air tonight Gorilla drummer. This is the perfect sentiment at this time.' (youtu.be) by /u/N0tMyRealAcct removed from /r/Bitcoin within 124-134min
How to Decentralize Bitcoin Development Forever -- but You Might Not Like It
Development of Bitcoin has become dysfunctional. This post isn't about either side of the block size debate, though the debate itself is the inspiration for this post. While the correct course of action may not be apparent, the divide in the community (and corresponding lack of direction) is apparent. Despite this, some of the community seems stead fast in finding a solution and moving forward in particular directions against the advice of some core developers. Unfortunately, we currently lack the ability to determine who truly has the most support in the public debate, or even if it is one sided. Herein I propose a way to:
Fund core development, and
Determine the source code used for compilation in a decentralized manner
All of this occurs on-blockchain where needed, and there are no trusted entities besides the compiler-maintainers, which can again be chosen in a similar decentralized manner. In the future perhaps we can use zero knowledge proofs to decentralize the compiling stage, but for the moment this is not considered. This proposal requires bitcoins to be burnt, or destroyed, in order to form consensus. While this may be unpalatable for some, it provides a way to secure the distributed consensus.
BlocVoting - delegative democracy on the blockchain
I presume the reader is familiar with the first two: Bitcoin and Git. Bitcoin provides the blockchain and Git provides our method of managing source code. GitTorrent is a recent development that allows accessing and hosting source code via a DHT, similar to accessing torrents via magnet links. BlocVoting is a protocol of my own design that facilitates liquid democracy (or delegative democracy) on the blockchain.
Bitcoin offers us an important lesson: the irreversible conversion or destruction of resources provides a method for converging to consensus in a distributed manner. By burning coins in a way that resembles proof-of-work we can secure a blockchain like structure to manage identities. Coins are burnt by sending them to an OP_RETURN output that contains linking information, among other things, and makes it impossible for these coins to be spent. Each burn transaction points to one or two previous burn transactions, which in turn points to previous burn transactions, etc. In this way, starting from a genesis burn tx, a graph (or list) of burnings can form. Like the blockchain has a "top block", the burn-graph will have one node with more coins cumulatively burnt than any other. This is the head of the graph, and used as the basis of the weighting system. In this way, an identity's weighting is determined by the volume of resources destroyed (number of coins). Because a weighting will only be obtained (for the burner) if the burning ends inside the burn-graph, there is an incentive to work off the top, in the same way that Bitcoin incentivises mining on top of the Bitcoin chain.
Aside: exponentially increasing the weighting with respect to time may be required in order to ensure old burnings don't interfere with recent burnings.
After the burn-graph is established we can extract a map (or dictionary, or list of (key, value) pairs) that will continually be updated. This map is between an identity (which can be a Bitcoin address) and a weighting. One increases their weighting by burning more coins.
Membership and Voting
Using this map as a membership list (open to anyone willing to participate in the burn-graph) we can then allocate the number of votes for that identity based on the weighting. Votes could be used to indicated current preference for the hash of the git commit which they prefer as the canonical source used for Bitcoin compilation. One option would be to implement direct democracy on the blockchain, but that would be inefficient. Instead, I propose an implementation of Delegative Democracy. This would allow most individuals (who do not have the technical prowess needed to read and understand Bitcoin source code) to choose a delegate, which they can change at any time, who can vote on their behalf. This delegate may in turn have a delegate of their own. This allows core developers to hold the same responsibility and power as they have in the past, until they are unable to solve problems effectively amongst themselves. This inevitably happens from time to time, and so at this point the next layer of delegates can take matters into their own hands and vote directly. If this increase in participation is still unable to solve the issue, the process can continue until we reach something similar to direct democracy where everyone is participating. Furthermore, when there is little controversy within the community delegative democracy is incredibly light, perhaps requiring only a few kilobytes per release cycle. During times of controversy it is natural that participation will rise, and so the space requirements will rise accordingly.
Disclosure: I am developing an on-blockchain implementation of delegative democracy called BlocVoting.
This voting network would not physically transfer tokens as some voting proposals do. Rather a weighted graph of voters would be established and evaluated for each ballot.
Hosting Source Code
While (at this stage) we could hook up a git server to read the blockchain and publish information about the current git head, we can do better. Using GitTorrent (source code) we can decentralize the source-code-hosting problem. Because we can decide on the latest commit with respect to the blockchain we no longer need to reference a) a hosted git repository, or b) a central authority. (These are the only two methods originally suggested, though the author does talk about using blockchain name resolution.) In this case, running a node to store and provide access to the Bitcoin source code would help the source-code-serving network (especially a node that tries to include as many branches as possible). The final problem to solve is source code distribution. The same voting network is capable of voting on compiler-maintainers. These would be public key identities (probably well connected to real world identities) that would be responsible for deterministically compiling and hosting Bitcoin binaries, based on what the most recent ballot yielded as the git head. In this way we could at least know if any funny business was going on by comparing the various compiled binaries. There is the potential to decentralize this further, but for the moment the above is considered sufficient.
Funding Core Development
At the beginning I mentioned funding core development, though that has remained absent until now. There is no way that I know of to integrate this sort of funding in such a way that does not provide an advantage for an attacker. However, with sensible defaults we can heavily mitigate this possibility. One possibility is for the protocol to mandate each vote requires 2 outputs with some ratio between the values (such as 1:1). One is an OP_RETURN output, and one standard output. By default users would be encouraged to select a core developer to donate to, though they could specify any address (including their own) to direct the second output at. Whether to include this at all is a design decision perhaps best left for later, but the possibility of funding development is tantalizing.
Using some novel technology and the immutability of the blockchain we can construct a framework to help manage decisions around what code to include in Bitcoin, including hard-forks and block-size updates. The unique combination of these technologies allows for a completely decentralized development process without the implicit trust that the Bitcoin community has endured (and now suffers from). We can host code trustlessly using GitTorrent and publish our preference for which code to use as the Bitcoin source code. Using a proof-of-burn based weighted graph we can ensure we maintain decentralized consensus using similar game theory to Bitcoin itself. See also: Original on my blog, github
Not decentralized enough
The letters "democracy" appear (if the word democracy is an issue for you, since in this case it is used only to label voting systems, please read it as "weighted preference graph")
Buying votes is undemocratic
This proposal would implode and take bitcoin with it (at which point I'd like to remind everyone that I'm not proposing ditching what we have now, this is in no way a destructive proposal -- if we were to implement it and then it broke there is still GitHub and exactly what we have now).
[Draw #59] It’s almost time to see who our winner is, the draw awaits!
Here’s the part where we get one in the crowd.
TL;DR - This post is for the sole purpose of choosing a winner. If you commented in this [Drawing Thread], you are entered in the drawing and don't need to do anything else. By 16:00 UTC, the winner will be selected. The Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain will be used to pick this winner. This can be verified at any device running Python 3.5, and you do not need to own Bitcoin in order to participate. Additionally, all information to replicate the Drawing at home is available on Dropbox and GitHub, scroll down for more information. Importantly, this post WILL NOT BE EDITED in order to keep the integrity of the Drawing. To verify this, there will not be an asterisk during the time passed since its creation. The winner will be announced in a stickied comment. DISCLAIMER:Some of the information may be unrevised, but procedures are the same as prior draws. Thank you. Off Topic: The [Discussion] Thread at /millionairemakersmeta is open. All comments are welcome there for any inquiries. [Discussion for Fall and Winter 2020-2021]:https://old.reddit.com/millionairemakersmeta/comments/iw8mse/_/ Explanation! The Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain will be used to choose a winner. Once the time listed has passed, there will be an active check to determine the blockchain's winning hash. Like before, this subreddit will wait for the 3rd Block after the time (being 16:00 UTC) to select the winner. If a block is discovered by 15:59 UTC, it will not be counted towards the counter of three blocks. If it's discovered by 16:00:00 UTC, then it will decrease the counter. This can be checked by seeing the timestamp given to it by blockchain explorers. You are able to see how this subreddit will verify the winner by checking the GitHub repository, which also includes a back-up plan in case of an emergency. Standard Protocol: This post will not be edited! This is to prevent tampering of the hash or files by any of the moderators. To prove this, look for the lack of an asterisk near the time since creation. To verify if a hash for a file is that of Draw #59, upload the file of choice to a SHA-256 generator, and match it with its respective hash output. The result you receive should be the same as what is listed here. If you are interested in doing this for yourself, download Python 3.5 or better and follow the path to the folder labeled: MM59 Status Reports: I will be commenting on the progress of the drawing via the comments, so other users can keep track of the progress. These comments will be pinned at the top of the post and be distinguished. Most likely, after 1:00 PM ET, the pinned comment will be announcing the winner. If you can run Python yourself and follow the instructions, you will be able to find the winner. Make sure the hash released from the blockchain and the total number of participants match with what is described below. In addition, thank you for your patience. Information Used For Draw #59:
GitHub Repository: https://github.com/lilfruini/CommentGathering-MillionaireMakers/tree/masteMM59 SHA-256 of Comment IDs: 6bdfd8d448bad1a0e13011f269b1d1d6b83416a872b0ea79493c075d53506461 SHA-256 of Authors: ed70c96c86ec382e462e8c045e2a9fcdd6b8665b4e6fdd4f180185508e97bc10 SHA-256 of DQed Age: 89db4164e849a1a5638eaf69249b552fe475c7091c9f34792b0907d367fec80e SHA-256 of Multiple Posters: f3c08ddbec20b198b0f8fc5fca351919aa856b4a9bb03993fbe003021b367dc9 SHA-256 of Truncated IDs: acca048cd9bc8dfaf8d65987c45c31d704955e69fc8af141105b9af4573a8a73 Block Selection: The Third Bitcoin Block After 18 October 2020 - 16:00:00 UTC Total Participants: 7,252
[OC] Which front offices and agents are the 3 major newsbreakers connected to? I went through 6000+ tweets to find out!
If this sounds somewhat familiar, that's because I did a 2019-2020 version and posted it back in March. In terms of changes from that post:
I've expanded the timeline to tweets from September 27, 2018. This is the first official day where each of Shams, Woj and Haynes were at their own respective companies. Shams moved to the Athletic from Yahoo in August, and Haynes moved from ESPN to Yahoo in September.
I've also expanded the criteria on when a tweet could possibly be linked to an agent
TL;DR Tracked tweetsof Woj, Shams and Haynes from 2018-2020 to see whether any of them report on a certain team or a certain agent's players more than their counterparts.Here is the main graphconcerning a reporter's percentage of tweets per team separated into three periods (2019 season, 2020 offseason, 2020 season). Here is aseparate graphwith the Lakers and Warriors, because Haynes's percentages would skew the first graph. During times like the NBA trade deadline or the lifting of the NBA free-agency moratorium, it’s not uncommon to see Twitter replies to (or Reddit comments about) star reporters reference their performance relative to others. Woj is the preeminent scoop hound, but he is also notorious for writing hit pieces on LeBron (sources say it’s been widely rumoured that the reason for these is that Woj has always been unable to place a reliable source in LeBron’s camp). On the other end of the spectrum, it has been revealed that in exchange for exclusive intel on league memos and Pistons dealings, Woj wrote puff pieces on then-GM Joe Dumars (see above Kevin Draper link). Last summer, Woj was accused of being a Clippers shill on this very discussion board for noticeably driving the Kawhi Leonard free agency conversation towards the team. This is the reason I undertook this project: to see whether some reporters have more sources in certain teams (and certain agencies) than other reporters. First I’ll explain the methodology, then present the data with some initial comments.
To make this manageable on myself, I limited myself to tracking the 3 major national reporters: Shams Charania of the Athletic, Chris Haynes of Yahoo Sports and the aforementioned Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN.
I didn’t use beat reporters, as most (if not all) of their sources would be concentrated on their local team
Others that I considered but ultimately decided not to track:
Brian Windhorst of ESPN (double-dipping in ESPN)
Zach Lowe of ESPN (I consider him more of an analyst)
Marc Spears of ESPN (harder to sift through Twitter feeds, as he posts a lot more unrelated/non-news-breaking content)
Marc Stein of the New York Times (same as Spears)
Kevin O'Connor of The Ringer (same as Lowe)
The time period I initially tracked for was from January 1, 2020 to the end of the regular season March, but after finding a Twitter scraping tool on GitHub called Twint, I was able to easily retrieve all tweets since September 27, 2018. However, a month ago, Twitter closed their old API endpoints, and Twint ceased to work. I used vicinitas.io but the data loading became more time-consuming. Therefore, the tweets are up to the date of October 15 2020. How I determined information was by manually parsing text tweets by the reporter (no retweets):
This means I did not include images or multimedia appearances such as television, radio or podcasts. The rationale for this is that I simply don’t have the time to listen/watch and record all the instances of providing information through sources on these mediums.
Now, I didn’t take every single text tweet:
I didn’t include direct statements, be they from players or front office folks
I separated them, along with podcast guests in another tab
I didn’t include the summary tweet that Woj & Shams love to do: “Story filed to/Story on [employer]:..” because it doesn’t add anything apart from a link to a story (also, I personally don’t want to be called an ESPN/Yahoo/Athletic shill)
If the tweet added a reporter’s own analysis to someone else’s tweet, it was not included
If it was new information, the tweet was retained
Tweets that related solely to retired players were not included: mainly Haynes reporting Dwyane Wade joining CAA, as well as the unfortunate passing of Kobe Bryant on January 26
I grouped multiple tweets about the same subject delivered around the same time frame (such as trades) into one, as doing otherwise would arbitrarily inflate totals
There’s no hard and fast rule for whether or not to group tweets
For example, the big 4-team trade that created the Pocket Rockets was grouped in full
On the other hand, the Miami-Memphis trade was split up because the full details came like a day later
Sometimes, I used my judgment to determine whether a tweet’s underlying information would have come from a source, and therefore whether I should include that tweet or not
For example, consider the All-Star tweets: Haynes and Shams both posted the All-Star starters, but looking at the time signatures led me to believe that this was simply relaying the information from the TNT reveal
On the other hand, both Shams and Haynes posted tweets disclosing the All-Star Reserves before the TNT reveal
Next, I had to assign possible teams to each tweet:
Items such as changes to the league calendar, the naming of All-Star Reserves and salary cap projections were immediately attached to an NBA source
Injuries and trades were fairly straightforward, assigning these tweets to the participating teams
Items such as league mandated fines/suspensions, invitations to All-Star competitions and game protests were credited to both a general NBA source, as well as the related team(s)
Direct sources from agents or mentions of specific agents were attributed as a catch-all “Agent”
In the former, team was not included: examples include Matisse Thybulle’s agent on not being selected for the Rising Stars Game or Royce O’Neale’s agents confirming his contract extension with the Jazz
In the latter, team was included: examples include two Knicks switching their agent to Rich Paul
New addition: anything related to a player's status with a team were also attributed to agents (qualifying offers, extensions, option decisions, waivers, and contracts/deals)
I then found which agents correspond to which players (big shoutout to realgm.com and the Wayback Machine)
Rumours were slightly more difficult
As we know very well, league sources is an exceedingly vague term
Instead of attempting to pinpoint a rival executive with a motive to make a comment, I took the “Occam’s Razor” approach and assumed that the teams involved had someone talk to the reporter
When it was impossible to even determine a participant team, it was the general “NBA” source to the rescue
Chris Haynes has the highest percentage of tweets relating to the Detroit Pistons in all three periods. He also reports on far more Portland news than Shams or Woj.
Shams' Brooklyn edge is evident. The Athletic was also the outlet that Kevin Durant felt comfortable talking to about his positive coronavirus test. As well, Shams reported on Spencer Dinwiddie's quest to tokenize his contract (similar to bitcoin).
Adrian Wojnarowski has increased his percentage of tweets regarding the LA Clippers period-over-period, but so have the other two reporters.
It's surprising that Dallas's numbers are so low, considering they're a good team with an international superstar.
My hypothesis from my previous post is that Shams and Woj each have capable Mavericks deputies in the Tims (Cato and MacMahon, respectively) and decide to leave that market alone
Shams does have the highest percentage of Mavericks tweets in all three seasons however.
Now, you'll notice that there's two teams missing from the above graph: the Golden State Warriors and the Los Angeles Lakers. Here's the graphs for those two teams. As you can see, they would skew the previous graph far too much. During the 2019 NBA season, 27% of Chris Haynes's qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Warriors, and 14% of his qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Lakers.
Here's the top 10 agents in terms of number of potential tweets concerning their clients.
Woj has the most tweets directly connected to agents by far. It wasn't uncommon to see "Player X signs deal with Team Y, Agent Z of Agency F tells ESPN." The agents that go to Woj (and some of their top clients):
Mark Bartelstein of Priority Sports (Bradley Beal, Kyle Lowry, Gordon Hayward)
Jeff Schwartz and Sam Goldfeder of Excel Sports (Khris Middleton, Nikola Jokic, CJ McCollum and Kevin Love)
Steven Heumann and Austin Brown of Creative Artists Agency (Andrew Wiggins, Chris Paul, Donovan Mitchell and Zion Williamson)
One thing I found very intriguing: 15/16 of tweets concerning an Aaron Turner client were reported on by Shams. Turner is the head of Verus Basketball, whose clients include Terry Rozier, Victor Oladipo and Kevin Knox. Shams also reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Sam Permut of Roc Nation. Permut is the current agent of Kyrie Irving, after Irving fired Jeff Wechsler near the beginning of the 2019 offseason. Permut also reps the Morris brothers and Trey Burke. As for Chris Haynes, he doesn't really do much agent news (at least not at the level of Woj and Shams). However, he reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Aaron Goodwin of Goodwin Sports Management, who reps Damian Lillard and DeMar DeRozan. Here are the top 10 free agents from Forbes, along with their agent and who I predict will be the first/only one to break the news.
Most Likely Reporter
Too close to call, leaning Shams
Too close to call, leaning Shams
Alexander Raskovic, Jason Ranne
Limited data, but part of Wasserman, whose players are predominantly reported on by Woj
Thanks for reading! As always with this type of work, human error is not completely eliminated. If you think a tweet was mistakenly removed, feel free to drop me a line and I’ll try to explain my thought process on that specific tweet! Hope y’all enjoyed the research!
[Draw #58] We have our comments, and soon we’ll have our winner!
TL;DR - This post is for the sole purpose of choosing a winner. If you commented in this [Drawing Thread], you are entered in the drawing and don't need to do anything else. By 16:00 UTC, the winner will be selected. The Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain will be used to pick this winner. This can be verified at any device running Python 3.5, and you do not need to own Bitcoin in order to participate. Additionally, all information to replicate the Drawing at home is available on Dropbox and GitHub, scroll down for more information. Importantly, this post WILL NOT BE EDITED in order to keep the integrity of the Drawing. To verify this, there will not be an asterisk during the time passed since its creation. The winner will be announced in a stickied comment. DISCLAIMER:Some of the information may be unrevised, but procedures are the same as prior draws. Thank you. Off Topic: The [Discussion] Thread at /millionairemakersmeta is open. All comments are welcome there for any inquiries. [Discussion for Fall and Winter 2020-2021]:https://old.reddit.com/millionairemakersmeta/comments/iw8mse/_/ Explanation! The Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain will be used to choose a winner. Once the time listed has passed, there will be an active check to determine the blockchain's winning hash. Like before, this subreddit will wait for the 3rd Block after the time (being 16:00 UTC) to select the winner. If a block is discovered by 15:59 UTC, it will not be counted towards the counter of three blocks. If it's discovered by 16:00:00 UTC, then it will decrease the counter. This can be checked by seeing the timestamp given to it by blockchain explorers. You are able to see how this subreddit will verify the winner by checking the GitHub repository, which also includes a back-up plan in case of an emergency. Standard Protocol: This post will not be edited! This is to prevent tampering of the hash or files by any of the moderators. To prove this, look for the lack of an asterisk near the time since creation. To verify if a hash for a file is that of Draw #58, upload the file of choice to a SHA-256 generator, and match it with its respective hash output. The result you receive should be the same as what is listed here. If you are interested in doing this for yourself, download Python 3.5 or better and follow the path to the folder labeled: MM58 Status Reports: I will be commenting on the progress of the drawing via the comments, so other users can keep track of the progress. These comments will be pinned at the top of the post and be distinguished. Most likely, after 1:00 PM ET, the pinned comment will be announcing the winner. If you can run Python yourself and follow the instructions, you will be able to find the winner. Make sure the hash released from the blockchain and the total number of participants match with what is described below. In addition, thank you for your patience. Information Used For Draw #58:
GitHub Repository: https://github.com/lilfruini/CommentGathering-MillionaireMakers/tree/masteMM58 SHA-256 of Comment IDs: 965c2c672cdcb28ac73f5bd866fc32403b8c7c8c94ffbb5c7e7ab93dccae8b58 SHA-256 of Authors: 62f3f887c55f6b6cffa3c3031c7a29ab25da8a653b327f4367ca914d92c8d866 SHA-256 of DQed Age: a05064a8c85ee95f48a4ac9f8f5b5562005a7dd9057bc8fa72bb7c3bfb785d08 SHA-256 of Multiple Posters: 1972757669a1deea8c21f97b2eed5bd191e75eb31b0cef24428ab4f1eede8649 SHA-256 of Truncated IDs: 1d66d36bb98ed5a8547209b2270bd72caa6d61276469aeb336cd64f628e5dcdc Block Selection: The Third Bitcoin Block After 20 September 2020 - 16:00:00 UTC Total Participants: 7,468
@bitaps_com: If you want to offer to expand explorers functionality, any bug report or any other suggestion please open Issue and submit it to this git repository. We will review this issue and do our best to make explorers better for you. #bitcoin #Litecoin
Bitcoind – a daemon program that implements the Bitcoin protocol, is controlled through the command line. It is one of the main components of the Bitcoin network node software. Bitcoin software exists in two forms: a GUI application and a background application (daemon on Unix, service on Windows). Individuals, businesses, developers: learn from our simple Bitcoin guides. How Bitcoin works, what is Bitcoin, what is blockchain, how to buy Bitcoin, what is Bitcoin mining and more. Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree. Contribute to bitcoin/bitcoin development by creating an account on GitHub. 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. Mystery Git ransomware appears to blank commits, demands Bitcoin to rescue code Sudden flurry of forum posts leaves a few clues. Fri 3 May 2019 // 19:00 UTC 43 Got Tips? Gareth Corfield Bio Email Twitter. Share. Copy. Updated Programmers say they've been hit by ransomware that seemingly wipes their Git repositories' commits and replaces them with a ransom note demanding Bitcoin. An unusual ...
You and your co-workers want to keep track of who picks up the check at lunch. But they can't be trusted. Build a solution in Git that keeps things fair without trust. The solution: blockchain! In ... DISCLAIMER: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK advert: FREE BTC https://bit.ly/2WkxXfP 🇵🇭 B⚫️T 👁🗨(command)termux terminal👁🗨 pkg install git -y git clone https://github.c... In this video, we'll go over all the important stuff you need to know to get started using Git. We cover git add, git commit, git branch, git checkout, and g... watch bitcoin history 2009-now with gource git visualization! see btc history unfold before your eyes! 📈 https://host.promo 👉🏼 domains cheap as $0.88 (insane... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue