43082 Dolar Americano a Bitcoin o 43082 USD a BTC

Detailed crypto background check on u/BashCo

Of u/BashCo's last 1413 posts (413 submissions + 1000 comments), I found 1239 in cryptocurrency-related subreddits. This all the data I found:
Subreddit No. of comments Avg. comment sentiment Total comment karma No. of posts Avg. post sentiment Total post karma
Bitcoin 721 0.06 3265 278 0.03 43082
BitcoinBeginners 0 0 0 1 0.0 19
btc 217 0.01 -402 0 0 0
CryptoCurrencies 1 -0.1 5 0 0 0
dogecoin 0 0 0 2 0.1 10
CryptoCurrency 14 -0.04 12 5 0.18 64
submitted by cryptochecker to cryptochecker [link] [comments]

Moon Math Update: Core and the acceptance of the first practical scaling solution

Looking at yesterday's post again, it's apparent that clarification is needed.
We have Lightning. We have Segwit. We have the best development team with the most experience implementing their own vision.

This is not a political debate.

This is a discussion about software engineering that everyone can participate in. You can talk about it, and you can vote with your dollars. How you decide to participate in it will have financial implications no matter what you do.
Even though this is a conversation that you are forced to participate in, it does still have a lot of nuance and complication. Segwit and Lightning aren't understood. Motivations for their creation don't seem to be understood. Their actual implementations aren't understood at all. The distinctions between Core's implementations and Altcoin implementations isn't understood. Adoption rates of Segwit aren't understood. Leaving Segwit out of the Core wallet GUI isn't understood. The rate of Segwit adoption isn't understood. The implications of doubling the rate of growth of the blockchain with a single change aren't understood... Lots of things are not understood and Core is busier solving issues than they are explaining them to people who don't understand the issues they are solving.

That's too much to research: I don't care

I'm trying to get people engaged in the conversation so they can find motivation to understand. I, we, need communicate with people who disagree with us to do that. I, we, want and need to hear complete and sensible arguments that make us rethink our positions and complete our perspectives. It doesn't make you right to be that person. It also doesn't make you wrong. However, we do need faith that Core knows what the hell they are doing. If we don't have that faith, then we need a good explanation, because all of them are at the very top of their field and doing the very best work.

How do you know that Core is best in class

I read the commit history and the commit logs, and you can too. I read the source code, and you can too. I see the bug reports, and you can too. I review the conversations they have, and you can too.
No other blockchain project I'm aware of is operating at this high of a level. If you disagree with that, I need to see you reference these sources. Otherwise, your disagreement is just your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Do your homework. Point at the specific problems you're observing. It's not enough to have an opinion; you need to have a reason why.

Why is Core leveraging economic pressure onto the community adopt their scaling solutions?

The central premise of the blockchain as a solution for the Byzantine General's Problem is that the collective we can continue forcing future generations to store and re-record the transactions of the past. There are mathematically proven realities that force design choices onto software developers who are aware of this. One rule is that you cannot have or imply a rate of storage that grows at a logarithmic rate.
You can argue that the rate of growth for the blockchain is irrelevant because storage density increases with Moore's Law, Logarithmically or exponentially. That argument does negate the above first rule. However, Bitcoin Core devs are following the implications that they see when they make design choices, and not just what is shown when they write out the implications of their choices using Big O notation.

What does it mean or imply when you say that Core is looking at more than just the Big O notation?

Doubling the rate of growth of the blockchain implies a logarithmic increase in the size of the blockchain through an analysis using Big O notation against the source code. Big O notation only shows a linear change. Objectively, the blockchain will only grow at a linear rate.
However, we see that a logarithmic change is implied. The logarithmic rate of growth is observed outside of the source code. We can see pieces of it in the issues that are filed in GitHub and the conversations devs have about the changes they want to make. What we see when we're observing the software from the outside is a singe change that doubles the rate of growth of the blockchain.

Big O says it's linear change, but we observe an exponential change. Why?

If we accept that the only way to increase the transaction limit is to increase the required size of the storage medium, that's what we'll do. After some period the blocks will fill up again and we'll be back to where we started. Economic pressure will again force developers to increase the block size. So, to meaningfully change it they double the block size again. This scaling problem will increase at some regular interval. That shows exponential growth in the size of the block chain.
The block size proposal is not a solution to the scaling problem, it's capitulation to the problem. That's the solution you see implemented by most blockchains today, and it's why they'll all eventually fail.

So, if you can't safely solve the problem by increasing the block size then how do you solve it?

You solve it by sharing the responsibility with other block chains and optimizing the way you store information in the block space you already have. That's Segwit and Lightning. There may be, and probably will be, more solutions that don't require increasing the block size in the future.

Why is everyone bitching about it, then?

The problem with these solutions are that they require the community to participate in the process. It forces people who are economically rewarded by their participation, to make changes in how they interact with Bitcoin.
I must pay to transfer my coins to a Segwit wallet that utilizes lightning if I want free transactions. That's going to cost money and be a pain in the ass.
Coinbase must hire developers to implement these solutions. Then it must pay people to maintain them. Obviously, they'd rather not do that. So, they tried to pass that responsibility off to everyone else. Finally, today, they capitulated. They were successfully forced to participate by contributing directly to the Bitcoin ecosystem instead of relentlessly and freely profiting from it.

Conclusion

The economic pressure Core is placing on vendors is part of the software solution to the scaling problem, and it's working. Today, Brain Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, announced that Coinbase is working on Segwit, and possibly Lightning.
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/951869357931425792
The implications are clear. When Coinbase implements Segwit the transaction backlog will be substantially reduced.
I keep saying that the realization that Core was always right will come in waves. This is wave one. The following waves will negatively impact all alts, save maybe one or two.
Mainstream acceptance isn't just allowing Bitcoin to exist, buy, and hodl. Mainstream acceptance is integrating directly into a single established backbone via software and networks. Bitcoin is establishing a long-term presence as a financial backbone. That's lightning, and Coinbase, along with others, who will implement a viable business model on top of a single tool that outcompetes all banks and institutions that are trying to implement this, badly, for themselves.
How many alts are going to have Segwit and lightning, and then have Coinbase integrate their business model into that? Not a lot. How many banks will do that? None, today. The question, rather, is which one, and which open blockchain will they choose to do that with?
Good hunting.
Principle:
Go to http://moonmath.win for the full update and rainbow charts
Label 7-day Performance 30-day Performance 60-day Performance 90-day Performance 2017 - Present Performance 2016 - Present Performance 2015 - Present Performance 2014 - Present Performance 2013 - Present Performance 2012 - Present Performance 2011 - Present Performance July 2010 - Present Performance
From Date 43105 43082 43052 43022 42736 42370 42005 41640 41275 40909 40544 40377
% Change $(0.18) $(0.16) $1.12 $1.38 $12.84 $30.79 $43.00 $16.93 $1,037.23 $2,621.15 $46,041.38 $160,986.35
Daily Periodic Rate -2.64% -0.53% 1.87% 1.53% 3.42% 4.15% 3.88% 1.15% 56.46% 118.98% 1792.89% 5886.16%
Over $25,190.00 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-02-28 2018-03-14 2018-04-06 2018-05-18 2018-07-04 2018-11-12 2018-06-16 2018-06-24 2018-05-30 2018-05-22
Over $56,234.13 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-05-03 2018-06-05 2018-07-29 2018-11-06 2019-02-24 2019-12-26 2019-01-14 2019-02-04 2018-12-07 2018-11-21
Over $1,000,000.00 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-12-17 2019-03-30 2019-09-13 2020-07-14 2021-06-13 2024-01-01 2021-02-12 2021-04-18 2020-10-24 2020-09-06
nannal 's A+ on NEVER!!! NEVER!!! 2018-08-04 2018-10-20 2019-03-16 2020-03-19 NEVER!!! NEVER!!! NEVER!!! NEVER!!! 2020-09-08 2020-06-19
http://moonmath.win
submitted by jarederaj to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Your Daily Moon Math - 2018-01-12

Looking at yesterday's post again, it's apparent that clarification is needed.
We have Lightning. We have Segwit. We have the best development team with the most experience implementing their own vision.

This is not a political debate.

This is a discussion about software engineering that everyone can participate in. You can talk about it, and you can vote with your dollars. How you decide to participate in it will have financial implications no matter what you do.
Even though this is a conversation that you are forced to participate in, it does still have a lot of nuance and complication. Segwit and Lightning aren't understood. Motivations for their creation don't seem to be understood. Their actual implementations aren't understood at all. The distinctions between Core's implementations and Altcoin implementations isn't understood. Adoption rates of Segwit aren't understood. Leaving Segwit out of the Core wallet GUI isn't understood. The rate of Segwit adoption isn't understood. The implications of doubling the rate of growth of the blockchain with a single change aren't understood... Lots of things are not understood and Core is busier solving issues than they are explaining them to people who don't understand the issues they are solving.

That's too much to research: I don't care

I'm trying to get people engaged in the conversation so they can find motivation to understand. I, we, need communicate with people who disagree with us to do that. I, we, want and need to hear complete and sensible arguments that make us rethink our positions and complete our perspectives. It doesn't make you right to be that person. It also doesn't make you wrong. However, we do need faith that Core knows what the hell they are doing. If we don't have that faith, then we need a good explanation, because all of them are at the very top of their field and doing the very best work.

How do you know that Core is best in class

I read the commit history and the commit logs, and you can too. I read the source code, and you can too. I see the bug reports, and you can too. I review the conversations they have, and you can too.
No other blockchain project I'm aware of is operating at this high of a level. If you disagree with that, I need to see you reference these sources. Otherwise, your disagreement is just your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Do your homework. Point at the specific problems you're observing. It's not enough to have an opinion; you need to have a reason why.

Why is Core leveraging economic pressure onto the community adopt their scaling solutions?

The central premise of the blockchain as a solution for the Byzantine General's Problem is that the collective we can continue forcing future generations to store and re-record the transactions of the past. There are mathematically proven realities that force design choices onto software developers who are aware of this. One rule is that you cannot have or imply a rate of storage that grows at a logarithmic rate.
You can argue that the rate of growth for the blockchain is irrelevant because storage density increases with Moore's Law, Logarithmically or exponentially. That argument does negate the above first rule. However, Bitcoin Core devs are following the implications that they see when they make design choices, and not just what is shown when they write out the implications of their choices using Big O notation.

What does it mean or imply when you say that Core is looking at more than just the Big O notation?

Doubling the rate of growth of the blockchain implies a logarithmic increase in the size of the blockchain through an analysis using Big O notation against the source code. Big O notation only shows a linear change. Objectively, the blockchain will only grow at a linear rate.
However, we see that a logarithmic change is implied. The logarithmic rate of growth is observed outside of the source code. We can see pieces of it in the issues that are filed in GitHub and the conversations devs have about the changes they want to make. What we see when we're observing the software from the outside is a singe change that doubles the rate of growth of the blockchain.

Big O says it's linear change, but we observe an exponential change. Why?

If we accept that the only way to increase the transaction limit is to increase the required size of the storage medium, that's what we'll do. After some period the blocks will fill up again and we'll be back to where we started. Economic pressure will again force developers to increase the block size. So, to meaningfully change it they double the block size again. This scaling problem will increase at some regular interval. That shows exponential growth in the size of the block chain.
The block size proposal is not a solution to the scaling problem, it's capitulation to the problem. That's the solution you see implemented by most blockchains today, and it's why they'll all eventually fail.

So, if you can't safely solve the problem by increasing the block size then how do you solve it?

You solve it by sharing the responsibility with other block chains and optimizing the way you store information in the block space you already have. That's Segwit and Lightning. There may be, and probably will be, more solutions that don't require increasing the block size in the future.

Why is everyone bitching about it, then?

The problem with these solutions are that they require the community to participate in the process. It forces people who are economically rewarded by their participation, to make changes in how they interact with Bitcoin.
I must pay to transfer my coins to a Segwit wallet that utilizes lightning if I want free transactions. That's going to cost money and be a pain in the ass.
Coinbase must hire developers to implement these solutions. Then it must pay people to maintain them. Obviously, they'd rather not do that. So, they tried to pass that responsibility off to everyone else. Finally, today, they capitulated. They were successfully forced to participate by contributing directly to the Bitcoin ecosystem instead of relentlessly and freely profiting from it.

Conclusion

The economic pressure Core is placing on vendors is part of the software solution to the scaling problem, and it's working. Today, Brain Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, announced that Coinbase is working on Segwit, and possibly Lightning.
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/951869357931425792
The implications are clear. When Coinbase implements Segwit the transaction backlog will be substantially reduced.
I keep saying that the realization that Core was always right will come in waves. This is wave one. The following waves will negatively impact all alts, save maybe one or two.
Mainstream acceptance isn't just allowing Bitcoin to exist, buy, and hodl. Mainstream acceptance is integrating directly into a single established backbone via software and networks. Bitcoin is establishing a long-term presence as a financial backbone. That's lightning, and Coinbase, along with others, who will implement a viable business model on top of a single tool that outcompetes all banks and institutions that are trying to implement this, badly, for themselves.
How many alts are going to have Segwit and lightning, and then have Coinbase integrate their business model into that? Not a lot. How many banks will do that? None, today. The question, rather, is which one, and which open blockchain will they choose to do that with?
Good hunting.
Principle:
Go to http://moonmath.win for the full update and rainbow charts
Label 7-day Performance 30-day Performance 60-day Performance 90-day Performance 2017 - Present Performance 2016 - Present Performance 2015 - Present Performance 2014 - Present Performance 2013 - Present Performance 2012 - Present Performance 2011 - Present Performance July 2010 - Present Performance
From Date 43105 43082 43052 43022 42736 42370 42005 41640 41275 40909 40544 40377
% Change $(0.18) $(0.16) $1.12 $1.38 $12.84 $30.79 $43.00 $16.93 $1,037.23 $2,621.15 $46,041.38 $160,986.35
Daily Periodic Rate -2.64% -0.53% 1.87% 1.53% 3.42% 4.15% 3.88% 1.15% 56.46% 118.98% 1792.89% 5886.16%
Over $25,190.00 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-02-28 2018-03-14 2018-04-06 2018-05-18 2018-07-04 2018-11-12 2018-06-16 2018-06-24 2018-05-30 2018-05-22
Over $56,234.13 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-05-03 2018-06-05 2018-07-29 2018-11-06 2019-02-24 2019-12-26 2019-01-14 2019-02-04 2018-12-07 2018-11-21
Over $1,000,000.00 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-12-17 2019-03-30 2019-09-13 2020-07-14 2021-06-13 2024-01-01 2021-02-12 2021-04-18 2020-10-24 2020-09-06
nannal 's A+ on NEVER!!! NEVER!!! 2018-08-04 2018-10-20 2019-03-16 2020-03-19 NEVER!!! NEVER!!! NEVER!!! NEVER!!! 2020-09-08 2020-06-19
http://moonmath.win
submitted by jarederaj to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Moon Math Update: Core and the acceptance of the first practical scaling solution

The following post by jarederaj is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7q1sbw
The original post's content was as follows:
Looking at yesterday's post again, it's apparent that clarification is needed.
We have Lightning. We have Segwit. We have the best development team with the most experience implementing their own vision.

This is not a political debate.

This is a discussion about software engineering that everyone can participate in. You can talk about it, and you can vote with your dollars. How you decide to participate in it will have financial implications no matter what you do.
Even though this is a conversation that you are forced to participate in, it does still have a lot of nuance and complication. Segwit and Lightning aren't understood. Motivations for their creation don't seem to be understood. Their actual implementations aren't understood at all. The distinctions between Core's implementations and Altcoin implementations isn't understood. Adoption rates of Segwit aren't understood. Leaving Segwit out of the Core wallet GUI isn't understood. The rate of Segwit adoption isn't understood. The implications of doubling the rate of growth of the blockchain with a single change aren't understood... Lots of things are not understood and Core is busier solving issues than they are explaining them to people who don't understand the issues they are solving.

That's too much to research: I don't care

I'm trying to get people engaged in the conversation so they can find motivation to understand. I, we, need communicate with people who disagree with us to do that. I, we, want and need to hear complete and sensible arguments that make us rethink our positions and complete our perspectives. It doesn't make you right to be that person. It also doesn't make you wrong. However, we do need faith that Core knows what the hell they are doing. If we don't have that faith, then we need a good explanation, because all of them are at the very top of their field and doing the very best work.

How do you know that Core is best in class

I read the commit history and the commit logs, and you can too. I read the source code, and you can too. I see the bug reports, and you can too. I review the conversations they have, and you can too.
No other blockchain project I'm aware of is operating at this high of a level. If you disagree with that, I need to see you reference these sources. Otherwise, your disagreement is just your opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Do your homework. Point at the specific problems you're observing. It's not enough to have an opinion; you need to have a reason why.

Why is Core leveraging economic pressure onto the community adopt their scaling solutions?

The central premise of the blockchain as a solution for the Byzantine General's Problem is that the collective we can continue forcing future generations to store and re-record the transactions of the past. There are mathematically proven realities that force design choices onto software developers who are aware of this. One rule is that you cannot have or imply a rate of storage that grows at a logarithmic rate.
You can argue that the rate of growth for the blockchain is irrelevant because storage density increases with Moore's Law, Logarithmically or exponentially. That argument does negate the above first rule. However, Bitcoin Core devs are following the implications that they see when they make design choices, and not just what is shown when they write out the implications of their choices using Big O notation.

What does it mean or imply when you say that Core is looking at more than just the Big O notation?

Doubling the rate of growth of the blockchain implies a logarithmic increase in the size of the blockchain through an analysis using Big O notation against the source code. Big O notation only shows a linear change. Objectively, the blockchain will only grow at a linear rate.
However, we see that a logarithmic change is implied. The logarithmic rate of growth is observed outside of the source code. We can see pieces of it in the issues that are filed in GitHub and the conversations devs have about the changes they want to make. What we see when we're observing the software from the outside is a singe change that doubles the rate of growth of the blockchain.

Big O says it's linear change, but we observe an exponential change. Why?

If we accept that the only way to increase the transaction limit is to increase the required size of the storage medium, that's what we'll do. After some period the blocks will fill up again and we'll be back to where we started. Economic pressure will again force developers to increase the block size. So, to meaningfully change it they double the block size again. This scaling problem will increase at some regular interval. That shows exponential growth in the size of the block chain.
The block size proposal is not a solution to the scaling problem, it's capitulation to the problem. That's the solution you see implemented by most blockchains today, and it's why they'll all eventually fail.

So, if you can't safely solve the problem by increasing the block size then how do you solve it?

You solve it by sharing the responsibility with other block chains and optimizing the way you store information in the block space you already have. That's Segwit and Lightning. There may be, and probably will be, more solutions that don't require increasing the block size in the future.

Why is everyone bitching about it, then?

The problem with these solutions are that they require the community to participate in the process. It forces people who are economically rewarded by their participation, to make changes in how they interact with Bitcoin.
I must pay to transfer my coins to a Segwit wallet that utilizes lightning if I want free transactions. That's going to cost money and be a pain in the ass.
Coinbase must hire developers to implement these solutions. Then it must pay people to maintain them. Obviously, they'd rather not do that. So, they tried to pass that responsibility off to everyone else. Finally, today, they capitulated. They were successfully forced to participate by contributing directly to the Bitcoin ecosystem instead of relentlessly and freely profiting from it.

Conclusion

The economic pressure Core is placing on vendors is part of the software solution to the scaling problem, and it's working. Today, Brain Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, announced that Coinbase is working on Segwit, and possibly Lightning.
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/951869357931425792
The implications are clear. When Coinbase implements Segwit the transaction backlog will be substantially reduced.
I keep saying that the realization that Core was always right will come in waves. This is wave one. The following waves will negatively impact all alts, save maybe one or two.
Mainstream acceptance isn't just allowing Bitcoin to exist, buy, and hodl. Mainstream acceptance is integrating directly into a single established backbone via software and networks. Bitcoin is establishing a long-term presence as a financial backbone. That's lightning, and Coinbase, along with others, who will implement a viable business model on top of a single tool that outcompetes all banks and institutions that are trying to implement this, badly, for themselves.
How many alts are going to have Segwit and lightning, and then have Coinbase integrate their business model into that? Not a lot. How many banks will do that? None, today. The question, rather, is which one, and which open blockchain will they choose to do that with?
Good hunting.
Principle:
  • Trust capable, motivated, and well compensated people
  • Do not participate in demagoguery
Go to http://moonmath.win for the full update and rainbow charts
Label 7-day Performance 30-day Performance 60-day Performance 90-day Performance 2017 - Present Performance 2016 - Present Performance 2015 - Present Performance 2014 - Present Performance 2013 - Present Performance 2012 - Present Performance 2011 - Present Performance July 2010 - Present Performance
From Date 43105 43082 43052 43022 42736 42370 42005 41640 41275 40909 40544 40377
% Change $(0.18) $(0.16) $1.12 $1.38 $12.84 $30.79 $43.00 $16.93 $1,037.23 $2,621.15 $46,041.38 $160,986.35
Daily Periodic Rate -2.64% -0.53% 1.87% 1.53% 3.42% 4.15% 3.88% 1.15% 56.46% 118.98% 1792.89% 5886.16%
Over $25,190.00 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-02-28 2018-03-14 2018-04-06 2018-05-18 2018-07-04 2018-11-12 2018-06-16 2018-06-24 2018-05-30 2018-05-22
Over $56,234.13 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-05-03 2018-06-05 2018-07-29 2018-11-06 2019-02-24 2019-12-26 2019-01-14 2019-02-04 2018-12-07 2018-11-21
Over $1,000,000.00 on Never!!! Never!!! 2018-12-17 2019-03-30 2019-09-13 2020-07-14 2021-06-13 2024-01-01 2021-02-12 2021-04-18 2020-10-24 2020-09-06
nannal 's A+ on NEVER!!! NEVER!!! 2018-08-04 2018-10-20 2019-03-16 2020-03-19 NEVER!!! NEVER!!! NEVER!!! NEVER!!! 2020-09-08 2020-06-19
http://moonmath.win
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Future of Bitcoin, according to Elliott Wave Scale Wipe motion graphics tutorial Digital Business Transformation Summit SAT: Šta najbolje čuva limariju Bitcoin Under the Influence PODCAST - Bitcoin Birch EP 27 ...

Height: 650,834. 0.00082432 BTC 530 bytes. Serialized Visual 43082 Dolar Americano a Bitcoin o 43082 USD a BTC. Ud. ha convertido 43082 to USD a BTC: 8.62008E-5. Para esta operación usamos tasa de cambio de divisas internacionales: 0.0000862008. El resultado aparecerá con cada recarga de la página. Usted puede convertir Dolar Americano a otras diversas divisas con la forma en la barra lateral derecha. Say I give 1 BTC to Alice who gives it to Bob who gives it to Carol. Can I now figure out that my original BTC is now with Carol? Of course, by Carol I mean an anonymous address. I'm thinking of a Wollen Sie wissen, wie viel Bitcoin 1 BitBay ist? 1 BAY zu BTC Rechner: Wechselkurs-Preis. Hier können Sie die Börsen überprüfen, an denen Sie mit BitBay zu BTC Paaren handeln können. More and more traditional institutions are coming to the realization that the Blockchain can solve many of their inefficiencies. Of course, in this context we are not talking about the Bitcoin Blockchain but the technology behind it, which would allow for things like instant transactions and sett...

[index] [22855] [45989] [13723] [8093] [1081] [50621] [20701] [34552] [30594] [27617]

The Future of Bitcoin, according to Elliott Wave

Ekipa emisije SAT nastavlja sa tradicijom specijalnih testova. Ovoga puta ispituju koja sredstva najbolje čuvaju karoseriju od oštećenja i grebanja. Kroz seriju ekstremnih ispita sa kamenjem ... Digital Business Transformation Program was a six-month business initiative conducted by Microsoft and Digital Excellence Group in partnership with Wroclaw University of Economics and Warsaw ... About our company: We would like to take this opportunity to briefly introduce our company which was founded by a team of experts with a total of more than 25 years of IT industry experience and a ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Template: http://easyaftereffects.net/scale-wipe-motion-graphics-tutorial Hi guys, it's my new motion graphics tutorial. The other day I experimented with di...

#