RT @TheBlueMatt: This is super obviously a bogus claim (and they have a long history of claiming to be responsible for more transactions than appear on chain, so best to ask for some evidence next time). https://t.co/OuipBtSPbQ
This is super obviously a bogus claim (and they have a long history of claiming to be responsible for more transactions than appear on chain, so best to ask for some evidence next time). https://t.co/OuipBtSPbQ
Blockchain's prior claims about their transaction volumes are provably false.
In the past, they simply counted any transaction they recorded as being submitted into their API as "theirs"... unaware or ignoring that due to their poor response times at displaying transactions multiple parties were simply hoovering transactions off the network and submitting them to their API.
So because of this, I'm extremely dubious of this more recent claim.
We may be invisible due to your own bias, but we're still busy serving customers everyday.
I often think back to sitting at Sightglass in SF with you about six years ago, in an attempt to reset relations. You were quite clear then that you hoped we'd disappear and that in five years, Bitcoin-Qt (now Bitcoin Core) would be the dominant crypto wallet.
The reality is, our wallet has never been more popular. It's over 90%+ of the txn volume for us (whereas back then, volume from API was higher). Our exchange is actually the second most popular (and growing fast).
It may be disappointing to you to be wrong, but on the bright side, aren't you happy that millions and millions of people around the world use bitcoin, with their own private key, ever year?
I hope so, and I hope you're doing well.
~Peter, CEO @ blockchain.com
> due to your own bias
Nothing particularly specific to me here, while inquiring about this report I received many other comments from people that were surprised to hear that your wallet was widely used, or comments like "we get support requests from their users from time to time and I'm always surprised to hear that its still around".
It just may be that your marketing is efficiently targeted. Your service has a poor enough reputation among long time Bitcoin users that marketing to them would surely be a waste of money.
> You were quite clear then that you hoped we'd disappear and that in five years, Bitcoin-Qt (now Bitcoin Core) would be the dominant crypto wallet.
This comment is perplexing to me. You clearly came away from that conversation with a different impression than I did.
> We may be invisible
Well, one element of your invisibility may be that you have thus far failed to respond to my email sent Mon, Apr 27 with the subject line "Rumouring".
From my experience a great driving force in use of that horrible wallet (blockchain.com) is scammers actively promoting it for these reasons -
1) It has a web based wallet which scammers love to use so they can easily remotely "help" new users with teamviewer or anydesk
2) It has some backdoors(key pairing to mobile wallet) that scammers love to exploit so even if you change the password and don't view the backup words you can steal the Bitcoin from users
3) The process for signup is quick and doesn't require one to verify seed words so scammers can quickly setup wallets they give to victims that they can steal the BTC bought or deposited from . Common variation is a "cloud mining scam" where the scammer sets up a blockchain.com wallet to be used for "cloud mining" that the victim has to buy or deposit BTC to mine with that gets stolen by the grifter as no mining exists
4) It has a built in marketplace where users can buy Bitcoin within the wallet that scammers can later steal from
This could account for part of the popularity of that wallet unfortunately. From what I have seen ~95% of scammers recommend this wallet with the second most popular being abra at 4.9% as a fallback
IMHO No one should be using blockchain.com wallets because
1) Lacks segwit so much higher tx fees
2) History of bugs and incompetence
3) missing advanced features like RBF, lightning , or privacy features
4) Is often used in insecure (osx/windows) desktop environments. IMHO you should only be using a wallet combined with a HW wallet in these environments. If you cant afford a 36 dollar HW wallet (trezor on sale now) than just use a mobile wallet
5) Is a popular wallet among scammers because of backdoor features and because it is easy to remotely setup
6) Horrible bad security decisions like allowing users to setup wallets without forcing them first to copy and verify backup words
7) History of privacy breaches from investors
8) Attacked Bitcoins consensus with segwit2x fiasco and never apologized
Perhaps one day this wallet can correct its past and current misdeeds but I certainly won't be recommending them
Apologies if I came away with an inaccurate impression at the time - I was reminded of it quite recently though, when going through my notes from that period.
It is a particular irony, of our space, that companies popular with mass consumer audience are not popular with the long-time folks, or least the *vocal* long-time folks.
I am glad though, that we still have hundreds, thousands, and hundred of thousands of customers from the early era (2012-2015) active with us.
I'll go look for your email -- to be honest, email isn't the best way to reach me. My inbox floods a lot. Many of your colleagues (former now I guess) still have my number if you've lost it.
> audience are not popular with the long-time folks, or least the vocal long-time folks.
We have many legitimate concerns with Blockchain.com and hope there are efforts to change poor behaviors in this company. No one is expected to be perfect, but greater effort should be taken. Not implementing segwit for almost 3 years is quite offensive IMHO.
Devil's advocate: how can it be offensive? You are not forced to use their service. How they make txs is only their business. They will feel the fee pressure enough to optimize, or not.
At least this is what I imagine you would say if someone took issue with how you make transactions. Should everyone be offended if you didn't batch your txs once a week?
Of course there is nothing wrong with pointing out how a company can optimize their use so everyone can win.
Its perfectly within their right but with their focus on scams over lowering fees for their clients and betrayed promises of implementing segwit multiple times within a window or time you can quickly understand why this would be offensive.
Wasn't that the company of which you doxxed a customer over a $10 dispute? You as a mere investor gaining access to private information you have no business even looking at, let alone throwing it on the internet?
Ah. good timing, Roger Ver.
You seem to have missed [several requests](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gnlb0d/barely_sociable_jesus_christ_these_people_are_so/fraylei/) to discuss your/SaintBitts funding of "Barely Sociable" and their video falsely accusing Adam of being the creator of Bitcoin.
Is there a good reason not to include transactions made via their API? Peter usually says he's including API numbers when he shares this kind of data publicly.
There are also theories that spam attacks on the network were generated via their API.
The problem is that an "API" transactions are not necessarily "made via their api".
People pick up transactions created by third parties off the P2P network and submit them to the blockchain.info API because historically blockchain.info has had issues showing transactions from the network in a timely manner. At least in the past, If they arrive to them via the api first they have reported them as their own.
Another way of looking at it, since they don't do segwit and segwit spending txn account for 50% of all transactions they're essentially claiming to be the author of essentially all non-segwit transactions. This is implausible because there are a number of other high profile users that don't use segwit (bitmex, for example) and because any spends of older pre-segwit coins can't use segwit either. I expect that on this basis someone should be able to show that their claim cannot be true.