Bitcoin Abuse Database: 14sqPTLzr2HdCucZdT4sFyVJimM9zwKjvi

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting. The more I look at the XT code, the more I find it's not just about the blocksize, but about privacy. This is an excellent article.

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting. The more I look at the XT code, the more I find it's not just about the blocksize, but about privacy. This is an excellent article. submitted by ILikeGreenit to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting submitted by ILikeGreenit to btc [link] [comments]

So, whats the story with this? Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting

So, whats the story with this? Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting submitted by imadickdealwithit to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting. The more I look at the XT code, the more I find it's not just about the blocksize, but about privacy. This is an excellent article.

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting. The more I look at the XT code, the more I find it's not just about the blocksize, but about privacy. This is an excellent article. submitted by ILikeGreenit to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting submitted by ILikeGreenit to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Any insights on this thread? "Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting"

Any insights on this thread? submitted by nimanator to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Desperation intensifies: "Bitcoin XT Fork Can 'Blacklist' Tor Exits, May Reveal Users’ IP Addresses"

Desperation intensifies: submitted by willfe42 to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting submitted by ILikeGreenit to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting

Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting submitted by coincrazyy to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Any insights on this thread? Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting

Any insights on this thread? Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting submitted by coincrazyy to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT Fork Can 'Blacklist' Tor Exits, May Reveal Users’ IP Addresses

Bitcoin XT Fork Can 'Blacklist' Tor Exits, May Reveal Users’ IP Addresses submitted by MuchBitcoin to MuchBitcoin [link] [comments]

A personal opinion with a collection of links and quotes

I don't take much joy in writing this post, however, with the upcoming fork and all the drama surrounding it, I felt compelled to do so. One thing I have advocated over the years along with many others in this space is to judge ideas based on their merit, and not based on the person presenting the idea. However, it's crucial that along with this general rule of thumb, that we as humans also align with our own philosophical ideas, morals, and ethics when we make decisions. Otherwise we end up with a conflict of our own self-interests; i.e., cognitive dissonance.
For example, let's just say I'm completely against the state. For this example, let's say I'm also an anarchist. Hypothetically speaking, someone presents an idea that is technically sound, and is overall an amazing idea by itself. I may like it a lot! However, I find out later the person presenting the idea is completely pro-state, and has made statements that he will use this idea in order to promote statist ideas and agendas. Even though the idea itself is sound and good, I know that the person presenting the idea has different principles than me that are in so much conflict with my own philosophies in life...that I will then begin to discount the idea -- not because the idea itself is bad -- but because I know the person behind the idea will use it in ways that don't align with my own personal life views.
Another thing I've advocated over the years is to think critically, independently, and have an open mind. I believe I've stayed true to this, and this is exactly what I am doing here. Bitcoin is built by humans, and is not artificial intelligence (at least not yet). This means, although ideas alone can have merit, we must also consider all the factors that go into an idea and how that idea will be used. If this goes into conflict with our life views, then we need to consider that as well when evaluating ideas.
Below are a collection of links and quotes of Craig Wright, in just the order I found them and they present the following:
This person's view on the world, people, economic freedom, view of Bitcoin and the change it brings the world is not in line with my own personal views and philosophies. And because his views are so extreme and contrast with my own on several topics, it's clear that overall whether he may have some good ideas or not (Bitcoin SV), that he will use them toward a larger more conflicting goal that goes against everything that I believe in. So although I may like some of his ideas, the results they will bring are a net negative in my opinion.
And for those that may respond to this post saying Proof of Social Media (PoSM), there is no king. Bitcoin was meant to be harmonious.
Before you dig into the links below. Remember, at the end of the day, this is just my personal opinion. Do your own research. Come to your own conclusion not just about an idea, but about what that idea entails. How will it be used? Does that conflict with your own personal world philosphies? Is the idea good short-term but long term-hurts others? If you're unsure, then don't take a stance. Watch from the sidelines and learn. This is a learning experience for all of us. Thanks.
CSW writes about a new (non hardfork-change) "They want it, they fork it, without us. Without the apps using our code, our IP etc. Without the companies we have invested in." People should see how dangerous this man and his patent troll company nChain are to Bitcoin Cash survival.
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/90e4j7/csw_writes_about_a_new_non_hardforkchange_they/
Craig Wright Accused of Plagiarizing His Research Papers
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/
CSW Threatens to "Blacklist" all BCH addresses that support ABC by using DSV
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9tnbwf/csw_threatens_to_blacklist_all_bch_addresses_that/
Craig Wright announces politically-motivated transaction censorship through address blacklisting on the SV chain
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/9tnkz9/craig_wright_announces_politicallymotivated/
CSW is pro state? anti-debate(blocks) and calls Anarchist fools. Does it relate to SV?
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9cb3po/csw_is_pro_state_antidebateblocks_and_calls/
Is it just me or does it feel like CSW is more interested in the failure of the current version of Bitcoin Cash rather than the success of SV?
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9ty888/is_it_just_me_or_does_it_feel_like_csw_is_more/
A miner who follows the rules in Bitcoin and does not diverge is not engaged in a 51% attack EVEN if they control 75% of the network.
https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1052493395963404288
Remember The Time CSW Got Drunk And Insulted Africa? (I have more money than your entire country)
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9u2vhs/remember_the_time_csw_got_drunk_and_insulted/
“I win or it all goes down”
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9tqk92/faketoshi_i_win_or_it_all_goes_down/
CSW is advocating to use Fiat. Sound familiar? (Just use FIAT)
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9tntf9/csw_is_advocating_to_use_fiat_sound_familia
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9tn83o/csw_recommends_to_sell_bch_now_and_buy_back_afte
Chris Pacia - "On one side you have the developers from every BCH implementation.. ABC, Unlimited, XT, Bitprim, Bitcrust, bcash, and bchd. On the other you have a single company threating 51% attacks and double spending exchanges. How is this not an attempted hostile takeover?"
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9sznww/chris_pacia_on_one_side_you_have_the_developers/
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9uipx3/craigs_razor_craig_wright_is_issuing_insane/
CSW, you're pitiful. #FreeRoss
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9clqh0/csw_youre_pitiful_freeross/
At last CSW revealed himself: Please, SEC and China, stop BCH.
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9ujii1/at_last_csw_revealed_himself_please_sec_and_china/
CSW - “Roger thinks he can use BCH to bypass government. I want to work with those who will work WITH banks and government” wtf this dude is Blockstream 2.0
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9c4emb/csw_roger_thinks_he_can_use_bch_to_bypass/
"I am going to be more ruthless than Mao and Stalin combined if crossed"
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9co5hw/i_am_going_to_be_more_ruthless_than_mao_and/
Craig Wright is practicing censorship on bchchat.slack.com (which used to be where all the BCH people would hang out). He just banned Jonald Fyookball for discussing the hardfork in /btc and disagreeing with him.
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9a8vtx/craig_wright_is_practicing_censorship_on/
CSW - "We have patents on this and related techniques pending - so, you add [DATASIGVERIFY] and you hand the base protocol to us"
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9an9up/csw_we_have_patents_on_this_and_related/
Reminder: always think critically and independently. There are various bad actors here trying to manipulate this sub in different ways (using bots, editing posts, abusing others, etc).
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9ce72b/reminder_always_think_critically_and/
I was neutral on Craig Wright but patent trolling Bitcoin is where I draw the line, this is completely unacceptable!
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9anakb/i_was_neutral_on_craig_wright_but_patent_trolling/
CSW: "There is no split. You split, we bankrupt you. This is how Bitcoin works. If you don't like it, stiff!"
https://old.reddit.com/btc/comments/9ckhdc/csw_there_is_no_split_you_split_we_bankrupt_you/
Vin Armani: The Coming Hash War - A Message To Bitcoiners
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9uf4xf/vin_armani_the_coming_hash_war_a_message_to/
If you think Bitcoin is going to become a system outside the law...
not going to happen
https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1059808650485735425
I strongly recommend that Bitcoin.,com do not use user funds without permission.
Japan is an Interpol member country and theft (as this will be construed) is taken seriously. @rogerver did you like prison that much? Do you want to go back?
https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1059759776366772224
They want to make a system that can be used to make bets on securities and commodities prices. A Bucket Shop - and it is illegal.
But, a few (idiots) think they can make it work if they add more anonymity and also DSV to Bitcoin cash.
They think this means that they will get away with it.
https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1059527058710323200
And, they think making illegal markets inside bitcoin is good.
That this helps adoption. What utter dickheads
Dumb squared
https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1059552276854067202
They are seeking to alter Bitcoin cash to not be pseudonymous, but with sidechains to be more anonymous
You can make Bucket shops now, but they seek to make ones that are hard to track and stop - which makes BCH itself a target
https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1059536647568740352
CSW theft
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9vbbp7/my_response_to_ryan_x_charles_splitting_coins_and/
submitted by BitcoinXio to btc [link] [comments]

BetTronLive POWER PICK DRAW 3.5M TRX Total Giveaway!

BetTronLive POWER PICK DRAW 3.5M TRX Total Giveaway!

BetTronLive POWER PICK DRAW 3.5M TRX Total Giveaway!

Double the chances in winning the prize too as you are allowed 2 TRON wallet address to register.
POWER PICK DRAW TERMS:
The BetTronLive Power Pick Draw will take place 10 days after the BetTronLive casino launches. ONLY 2 TRON WALLETS IS ALLOWED PER 1 IP ADDRESS. TRON wallets, pre-registered before the launch will be entered into the Power Pick draw at no cost and as a thank you for being a 1st time movers 3 TRON Wallets will be chosen at random and issued rewards directly into those wallets as follows:

1st Place - 2,000,000 TRX2nd Place - 1,000,000 TRX3rd Place - 500,000 TRX

How to join:
  1. Create your wallet here: http://bit.ly/2XHjBYo
  2. Visit our website: https://bettronlive.io/
  3. Enter your Tron address on the box provided and click REGISTER.

https://preview.redd.it/2mpuh2scno831.png?width=1500&format=png&auto=webp&s=f8dea7e17d2fd606bc30a4b9c7d97dd3c9dc5f0c
Join our community: https://t.me/BetTronLive
Keep updated on announcements: https://t.me/BetTronLiveANN
Visit our Website: https://bettronlive.io/
Whitepapers & Summaries (Multilingual): https://bettronlive.io/documents.php
Follow us in our social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/bettronlive Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/BetTronLive Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bettronlive/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bettronlive/ Medium: https://medium.com/@bettronlive Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxNpc_WniZ7iFYSTW1ppJ7g Watch our video: https://youtu.be/9Za9n81h8C8 BTT Ann: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155822 BTT Bounty: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php…
#BetTronLive #RAKE #bounty #trondapp #TRON #trx #Trondapps #casino#onlinecasino #gaming #onlinegaming #onlinebetting #sportsbetting #dice#slotmachine #baccarat #bingo #FOMO #jackpot #mining #wager #btc #alts#bitcoin #altcoins #cryptocurrency #blockchain #livedealers #dealers#players #winner #model #dividends #earn #2M #3.5M #prize
submitted by QSMarketingCorp to BetTronLive [link] [comments]

BetTronLive Youtube Video

BetTronLive is a live dealer casino based on the TRON network blockchain. Our own cryptocurrency – the RAKE token – takes user experience in iGaming to the next level.

Pre-register on our website to be included in our POWER PICK DRAW:
> Create your wallet here: http://bit.ly/2XHjBYo > Visit our website: https://bettronlive.io/ > Enter your TRON address in the box provided and click REGISTER.

Three random wallets will be chosen to win. 1st Place - 1,000,000 TRX 2nd Place - 500,000 TRX 3rd Place - 250,000 TRX

Early players will be the first to learn more about our: 1. Mining 2. Dividends 3. Promos and Incentives 4. New Games 5. Payday Pot 6. FOMO Jackpot
...and much, much more!
https://youtu.be/9Za9n81h8C8
Join our community: https://t.me/BetTronLive
BetTronLive, a new way to earn and play, anywhere, anytime!
Join our community: https://t.me/BetTronLive
Keep updated on announcements: https://t.me/BetTronLiveANN
Visit our Website: https://bettronlive.io/
Whitepapers & Summaries (Multilingual): https://bettronlive.io/documents.php
Follow us in our social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/bettronlive Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/BetTronLive Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bettronlive/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bettronlive/ Medium: https://medium.com/@bettronlive Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxNpc_WniZ7iFYSTW1ppJ7g BTT Ann: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155822
#BetTronLive #RAKE #trondapp #TRON #trx #Trondapps #casino#onlinecasino #gaming #onlinegaming #onlinebetting #sportsbetting #dice#slotmachine #baccarat #bingo #btc #alts #bitcoin #altcoins #cryptocurrency#blockchain #livedealers #dealers #players #winner #model #dividends #earn #youtube #video
submitted by QSMarketingCorp to BetTronLive [link] [comments]

Dear Greg (and other Core developers)

Dear Greg (and other Core developers),
Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way.
Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter.
When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now.
As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user.
With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core.
For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.
Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited.
So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it.
Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do?
I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that.
Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years.
The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?
The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart?
I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion.
Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid."
If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg?
Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words.
Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.
Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.
Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage.
Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire.
And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit.
So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant.
As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed.
Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense.
Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded.
Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor.
There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs.
Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win.
It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it.
But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone.
Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft.
Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight.
So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around.
You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.
Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right.
But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder.
Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg?
Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice?
Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore.
And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear.
I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.
That's all.
Alex
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1842146.msg18335776#msg18335776
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

Misconceptions about Hashpower and Chain Validity

This post makes the case that it is fallacious to use hashpower as the determining factor for or against competing consensus rules within Bitcoin or between competing versions of the software.
Background
The issue of whether or not hashpower determines chain validity has been a hot issue ever since miner signalling and node count sparked controversy during the early days of the blocksize civil war back in 2015/2016.
Some level of support arose for alternative clients like Bitcoin-XT and Bitcoin Classic that favored immediate hard-forked blocksize increases. Detractors of the new clients eschewed the software, and pointed to the minority node count and hashpower backing them.
It soon became undeniable that node counts were easily faked, which made them highly unreliable as a stand-alone metric, and the discussion shifted toward hashpower, which cannot be sybilled.
Later on, there was a substantial amount of hashpower signalling for Bitcoin Unlimited, a continuation of the XT and Classic effort toward bigger blocks. Some proponents of BU pointed to the majority hashpower as evidence that it was the path the network should take, with many citing the whitepaper to back up this claim. Similar arguments arose for Segwit2x after Bitcoin Unlimited demonstrated its unreliability as a client. Many rejected this claims, declaring that users decide and miners follow, not vice versa.
Fast forward a year or two, and things are different. BCH (as well as many other clients) split off from BTC (taking many supporters of BU with it), and there are many separate chains claiming to be a type of Bitcoin. One of the arguments used by some BTC proponents today is that the longest chain by PoW determines which is the correct chain.
Detractors of BTC now cry hypocrisy - hashpower was rejected as a measure for choosing new rules, so why can it be used to legitimize one set of rules over another?
I submit that both sides miss the point.
The Whitepaper in Context
Many individuals love to mine quotes from the whitepaper in an attempt to bolster their position. I think this is foolish for the obvious fact that Satoshi wasn't infallible, made mistakes, and (quite understandably) failed to predict several highly relevant phenomena that emerged after his disappearance.
Despite this, let's humor those who tend to treat the paper as canon. As far as I can tell, there are two relevant sections from the whitepaper:
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.
and
Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one.
It should be quite clear from the context that longest chain by PoW as a metric for which is the "correct one" refers specifically to competing chains of the same ruleset. It's a method help users of the same Bitcoin to stay on the same chain.
Nothing in the paper makes any sort of reference to using hashpower or PoW when updating the rules or choosing between two different existing rulesets.
Causation Confusion and Subjectivity
But let's say that (like myself) you're less doctrinal and more pragmatic, and think we needn't bother consulting the whitepaper to settle disputes.
Can we still use hashpower as a metric for either cause? I'd call it tangential, at best.
Let's start with the case of determining new rules for a single network, as the situation was back before the Bitcoin hardforks began?
Sure, the entire mining community could signal for a certain new rule, and then roll out a fork to apply it. The rest of the community couldn't really stop them. Indeed, many might even choose to follow them. But mining hashpower has no power to decide for everyone else in the case of a dispute. If the Bitcoin economy doesn't like the new rules, they can opt to follow a chain without them. If that chain is supported by a greater portion of the economy, then its tokens will see their price rise. And the hashpower will inevitably follow.
So you can use hashpower to indicate which chain is considered valid according to the economic size of its supporters, but it has to be acknowledged that this is an effect, not a cause.
It's even easier to demonstrate between competing chains. Hashpower follows price. And the price gets set by the market, which should, at least in the long run, be determined by economic usefulness. In this case, hashpower will closely follow market sentiment. So hashpower can be used, but really only as a indicator of what most of the market thinks.
And if we're fighting over nomenclature, it's only really useful if your definition of "Bitcoin" is "what most of the market thinks it is". Though most people will only agree with that if the market agrees with their personal views at a given time. :)
TLDR: "Hashpower Determines Which Chain is Bitcoin" only applies keeping consensus among competing chains with the same ruleset. It is an entirely irrelevant concept to naming disputes between competing cryptocurrencies with differing rulesets.
submitted by makriath to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

My draft for a new /r/btc FAQ explaining the split from /r/Bitcoin to new users

If /btc is going to actually compete with /Bitcoin, it needs to be just as friendly and informative to new users, especially given its position as the “non default” or “breakaway” sub. The current /btc sticky saying "Welcome to the Wiki" doesn't even have any content in it and I feel this is a bit of a wasted opportunity to create an informative resource that new users will see by default and everyone else can link to instead of retyping things over and over about the history and difference between the subs.
Here's what I've written as a starting point. I've done my best to keep it as concise and relevant as possible but in all honesty it is a complicated issue and a short but effective explanation is basically impossible. I hope the community can expand/improve on it further.
Quick bit about me
I got into Bitcoin in October 2013, when /Bitcoin had around 40k subscribers if I remember correctly, so by now I've actually personally experienced a large portion of Bitcoin's history - including the events preceding and since the creation of this sub. I have been an active and popular poster on /Bitcoin for almost all of that time, until the split and my subsequent banning. With the recent censorship fiasco, I'm finding I have to reiterate the same points over and over again to explain to newer users what happened with the /Bitcoin vs /btc split, questions about hard forks, what is likely to happen in the future and so on. So I put a couple of hours into writing this post to save myself the trouble in future.

/btc FAQ - Historical split from /Bitcoin megathread - v0.1

There is a TL:DR; at the bottom, but it is exactly that. If you skip straight to the TL:DR; then don’t expect sympathy when you post questions that have already been covered in the lengthy and detailed main post.

New to Bitcoin?

I am totally new to Bitcoin. What is it? How does it work? Can/should I mine any? Where can I buy some? How do I get more information?
All of these questions are actually really well covered in the /Bitcoin FAQ. Check it out in a new tab here. Once you've got a bit of a handle on the technology as a whole, come back here for the rest of the story.

History: /btc vs /Bitcoin

What's the difference between /btc and /Bitcoin? What happened to create two such strongly opposed communities? Why can't I discuss /btc in /Bitcoin?
Historically, the /Bitcoin subreddit was the largest and most active forum for discussing Bitcoin. As Bitcoin grew close to a cap in the number of transactions it could process, known as the 1MB block size limit, the community had differing opinions on the best way to proceed. Note that this upcoming issue was anticipated well ahead of time, with Satoshi's chosen successor to lead the project Gavin Andresen posting about it in mid 2015. Originally, there was quite a broad spread of opinions - some people favoured raising the blocksize to various extents, some people favoured implementing a variety of second layer solutions to Bitcoin, probably most people thought both could be a good idea in one form or another.
This topic was unbelievably popular at the time, taking up almost every spot on the front page of /Bitcoin for weeks on end.
Unfortunately, the head moderator of /Bitcoin - theymos - felt strongly enough about the issue to use his influence to manipulate the debate. His support was for the proposal of existing software (called Bitcoin Core) NOT to raise the blocksize limit past 1MB and instead rely totally on second layer solutions - especially one called Segregated Witness (or SegWit). With some incredibly convoluted logic, he decided that any different implementations of Bitcoin that could potentially raise the limit were effectively equivalent to separate cryptocurrencies like Litecoin or Ethereum and thus the block size limit or implement other scaling solutions were off-topic and ban-worthy. At the time the most popular alternative was called Bitcoin XT and was supported by experienced developers Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, who have since both left Bitcoin Core development in frustration at their marginalisation. Theymos claimed that for Bitcoin XT or any other software implementation to be relevant to /Bitcoin required "consensus", which was never well defined, despite it being seemingly impossible for everyone to agree on the merits of a new project if no one was allowed to discuss it in the first place. Anyone who didn't toe the line of his vaguely defined moderation policy was temporarily or permanently banned. There was also manipulation of the community using the following tactics - which can still be seen today:
This created enormous uproar among users, as even many of those in favour of Bitcoin Core thought it was authoritarian to actively suppress this crucial debate. theymos would receive hundreds of downvotes whenever he posted: for example here where he gets -749 for threatening to ban prominent Bitcoin business Coinbase from the subreddit.
In an extraordinary turn of events, Theymos posted a thread which received only 26% upvotes in a sample size of thousands announcing that he did not care if even 90% of users disagreed with his policy, he would not change his opinion or his moderation policy to facilitate the discussion the community wanted to have. His suggested alternative was instead for those users, however many there were, to leave.
Here are Theymos' exact words, as he describes how he intends to continue moderating Bitcoin according to his own personal rules rather than the demands of the vast majority of users, who according to him clearly don't have any "real arguments" or "any brains".
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin , and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
/btc was therefore born in an environment not of voluntary departure but of forced exile.
This forced migration caused two very unfortunate occurrences:
  1. It polarised the debate around Bitcoin scaling. Previously, there was a lot of civil discussion about compromise and people with suggestions from all along the spectrum were working to find the best solution. That was no longer possible when a moderation policy would actively suppress anyone with opinions too different from Theymos. Instead it forced everyone into a "with us or against us" situation, which is why the /btc subreddit has been pushed so far in favour of the idea of a network hard fork (discussed below).
  2. It has distracted Bitcoin from its mission of becoming a useful, global, neutral currency into a war of information. New users often find /Bitcoin and assume it to be the authoritative source of information, only to later discover that a lot of important information or debate has been invisibly removed from their view.
Since then, like any entrenched conflict, things have degenerated somewhat on both sides to name calling and strawman arguments. However, /btc remains committed to permitting free and open debate on all topics and allowing user downvotes to manage any "trolling" (as /Bitcoin used to) instead of automatic shadow-banning or heavy-handed moderator comment deletion (as /Bitcoin does now). Many users in /Bitcoin deny that censorship exists at all (it is difficult to see when anyone pointing out the censorship has their comment automatically hidden by the automoderator) or justify it as necessary removal of "trolls", which at this point now includes thousands upon thousands of current and often long-standing Bitcoin users and community members.
Ongoing censorship is still rampant, partially documented in this post by John Blocke
For another detailed account of this historical sequence of events, see singularity87 s posts here and here.
/btc has a public moderator log as demonstration of its commitment to transparency and the limited use of moderation. /Bitcoin does not.
Why is so much of the discussion in /btc about the censorship in /Bitcoin? Isn't a better solution to create a better community rather than constantly complaining?
There are two answers to this question.
  1. Over time, as /btc grows, conversation will gradually start to incorporate more information about the Bitcoin ecosystem, technology, price etc. Users are encouraged to aid this process by submitting links to relevant articles and up/downvoting on the /new and /rising tab as appropriate. However, /btc was founded effectively as a refuge for confused and angry users banned from /Bitcoin and it still needs to serve that function so at least some discussion of the censorship will probably always persist (unless there is a sudden change of moderation policy in /Bitcoin).
  2. The single largest issue in Bitcoin right now is the current cap on the number of transactions the network can process, known as the blocksize limit. Due to the censorship in /Bitcoin, open debate of the merits of different methods of addressing this problem is impossible. As a result, the censorship of /Bitcoin (historically the most active and important Bitcoin community forum) has become by proxy the single most important topic in Bitcoin, since only by returning to open discussion would there be any hope of reaching agreement on the solution to the block size limit itself. As a topic of such central importance, there is naturally going to be a lot of threads about this until a solution is found. This is simply how Bitcoin works, that at any one time there is one key issue under discussion for lengthy periods of time (previous examples of community "hot topics" include the demise of the original Bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, the rise to a 51% majority hash rate of mining pool GHash.io and the supposed "unveiling" of Bitcoin's anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto).

Bitcoin Network Hard Forks

What is a hard fork? What happens if Bitcoin hard forks?
A network hard fork is when a new block of transactions is published under a new set of rules that only some of the network will accept. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain history of transactions to two separate blockchains of the current state of the network. With any luck, the economic incentive for all users to converge quickly brings everyone together on one side of the fork, but this is not guaranteed especially since there is not a lot of historical precedent for such an event.
A hard fork is necessary to raise the block size limit above its 1MB cap.
Why is /btc generally in favour of a hard fork and /Bitcoin generally against?
According to a lot of users on /Bitcoin - a hard fork can be characterised as an “attack” on the network. The confusion and bad press surrounding a hard fork would likely damage Bitcoin’s price and/or reputation (especially in the short term). They point to the ongoing turmoil with Ethereum as an example of the dangers of a hard fork. Most of /Bitcoin sees the stance of /btc as actively reckless, that pushing for a hard fork creates the following problems:
According to a lot of users on /btc - a hard fork is necessary despite these risks. Most of /btc sees the stance of /Bitcoin as passively reckless, that continuing to limit Bitcoin’s blocksize while remaining inactive creates the following problems:
Bitcoiners are encouraged to examine all of the information and reach their own conclusion. However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is an open-source project founded on the ideal of free market competition (between any/all software projects, currencies, monetary policies, miners, ideas etc.). In one sense, /btc vs /Bitcoin is just another extension of this, although Bitcoiners are also encouraged to keep abreast of the top posts and links on both subreddits. Only those afraid of the truth need to cut off opposing information.
What do Bitcoin developers, businesses, users, miners, nodes etc. think?
Developers
There are developers on both sides of the debate, although it is a common argument in /Bitcoin to claim that the majority supports Bitcoin Core. This is true in the sense that Bitcoin Core is the current default and has 421 listed code contributors but misleading because not only are many of those contributors authors of a single tiny change and nothing else but also many major figures like Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik have left the project while still being counted as historical contributors.
Businesses including exchanges etc.
A definite vote of confidence is not available from the vast majority of Bitcoin businesses, and wouldn't be binding in any case. The smart decision for most businesses is to support both chains in the event of a fork until the network resolves the issue (which may only be a day or two).
Users
Exact user sentiment is impossible to determine, especially given the censorship on /Bitcoin.
Miners and Nodes
Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
What do I do if the network hard forks?* Do we end up with two Bitcoins?
Firstly, in the event of a hard fork there is no need to panic. All Bitcoins are copied to both chains in the case of a split, so any Bitcoins you have are safe. HOWEVER, in the event of a fork there will be some period of confusion where it is important to be very careful about how/why you spend your Bitcoins. Hopefully (and most likely) this would not last long - everyone in Bitcoin is motivated to converge into agreement for everyone's benefit as soon as possible - but it's impossible to say for sure.
There isn't a lot of historical data about cryptocurrency hard forks, but one example is alternative cryptocurrency Ethereum that forked into two coins after the events of the DAO and currently exists as two separate chains, ETH (Ethereum) and ETC (Ethereum Classic).
The Ethereum fork is not a good analogy for Bitcoin because its network difficulty target adjusts every single block, so a massive drop in hash rate does not significantly impede its functioning. Bitcoin’s difficult target adjusts only every 2100 blocks - which under usual circumstances takes two weeks but in the event of a hard fork could be a month or more for the smaller chain. It is almost inconceivable that a minority of miners would willingly spend millions of dollars over a month or more purely on principle to maintain a chain that was less secure and processed transactions far slower than the majority chain - even assuming the Bitcoins on this handicapped chain didn't suffer a market crash to close to worthless.
Secondly, a hard fork is less likely to be a traumatic event than it is often portrayed in /Bitcoin:

What Happens Now

How do I check on the current status of opinion?
Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
Users are also welcome to engage in anecdotal speculation about community opinion based on their impression of the commentary and activity in /btc and /Bitcoin.
Haven't past attempts to raise the blocksize failed?
There is no time limit or statute of limitations on the number of attempts the community can make to increase the block size and scale Bitcoin. Almost any innovation in the history of mankind required several attempts to get working and this is no different.
The initial attempt called Bitcoin XT never got enough support for a fork because key developer Mike Hearn left out of frustration at trying to talk around all the censorship and community blockading.
The second major attempt called Bitcoin Classic gained massive community momentum until it was suddenly halted by the drastic implementation of censorship by Theymos described above.
The most popular attempt at the moment is called Bitcoin Unlimited.
/btc is neutral and welcoming to any and all projects that want to find a solution to scaling Bitcoin - either on-or off-chain. However, many users are suspicious of Bitcoin Core's approach that involves only SegWit, developed by a private corporation called Blockstream and that has already broken its previous promises in a document known as the Hong Kong Agreement to give the network a block size limit raise client along with Segregated Witness (only the latter was delivered) .
What if the stalemate is irreconcilable and nothing ever happens?
Increasing transaction fees and confirmation times are constantly increasing the pressure to find a scaling solution - leading some to believe that further adoption of Bitcoin Unlimited or a successor scaling client will eventually occur. Bitcoin Core's proposed addition of SegWit is struggling to gain significant support and as it is already the default client (and not censored in /Bitcoin) it is unlikely to suddenly grow any further.
If the stalemate is truly irreconcilable, eventually users frustrated by the cost, time and difficulty of Bitcoin will begin migrating to alternative cryptocurrencies. This is obviously not a desirable outcome for long standing Bitcoin supporters and holders, but cannot be ignored as the inevitable free market resort if Bitcoin remains deadlocked for long enough.

TL:DR;

I don’t know anything about Bitcoin. Help me?
What’s the /btc vs /Bitcoin story?
  • Bitcoin is at its transaction capacity and needs to scale to onboard more users
  • The community was discussing different ways to do this until the biased head moderator of /Bitcoin Theymos got involved
  • Theymos, started an authoritarian censorship rampage which culminated in telling 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. /btc is where they went. Here is the thread where it all started. Note the 26% upvoted on the original post, the hundreds of upvotes of community outcry in the comments and the graveyard of [removed] posts further down the chain. Highly recommended reading in its entirety.
  • To this day, /Bitcoin bans all discussion of alternative scaling proposals and /btc
  • Bitcoin is about freedom, and can’t function effectively with either an artificially restricted transaction cap or a main community forum that is so heavily manipulated. This subreddit is the search for solutions to both problems as well as general Bitcoin discussion.
What’s the deal with hard forks?
  • No TL:DR; possible, read the whole post.
What happens now?
  • Node Support Information
  • Miner Support Information
  • Debate continues in /btc, and generally doesn't continue in /Bitcoin - although posts referencing /btc or Bitcoin Unlimited regularly sneak past the moderators because it is such a crucial topic
  • Eventually one side or the other breaks, enough miners/nodes/users get on one side and Bitcoin starts scaling. This may or may not involve a hard fork.
  • If not, fees and average confirmation times continue to rise until users migrate en masse to an altcoin. This is not an imminent danger, as can be seen by the BTC marketcap dominance at its historical levels of 80+% but could change at any time
submitted by Shibinator to btc [link] [comments]

Crash Course On Cryptocurrency Wallets

Today we have decided to have a small crash course for those who are new at the market of cryptocurrencies. And we’re going to start from the very basics.
The most important point that one has to understand, is that to keep cryptocurrency you have to have a wallet’s address and there are three ways how you can create one:
  1. Use online wallets
  2. Download a program to your PC
  3. Buy a hardware wallet
We will quickly go through pros and cons of each way. But let’s start by telling a few words about what a wallet for cryptocurrencies is using bitcoin as a sample.
- - -
Bitcoin, as any other cryptocurrency, is kept only in a form of a blockchain. Anybody can view a transaction in the net, check the balance of any wallet. This information is open for everyone. But it is impossible to tell who the owner of the wallet is.
Bitcoin wallet has two parts:
• Open key. It is the address of the bitcoin wallet, it is not a secret. It has 32-34 symbols of Latin letters and numbers. All addresses always start with the number “1” or “3”.
• Private key (sometimes called as a secret key). It is a longer sequence of letters and numbers of the Latin alphabet. You mustn’t tell it to anyone, because it is an access to the wallet.
Transaction in bitcoin network means that cryptocoins go from one wallet’s address to another. The speed of transaction is equal to emerging of a new block in blockchain (10 minutes on average).
Transaction is subject to a small fee. Depending on the network loading, its amount can change. The sender specifies its amount. By the way, commission does not depend on the amount of transaction. You can transfer amount equaling to $10, $10000 or $1 billion and still pay the same commission.
- - -
  1. Online wallets There are lots of sites which offer services for creation and keeping online-wallets. They are called “cryptowallets”. The service takes on all the issues of keeping funds safe. There are pros in that, since you don’t need to think about computer safety, plus reliability of the service is usually much better that that of a simple computer.
We would like to personally recommend the service blockchain.com
  1. Program on your PC You can download programs for bitcoin wallet on the official website bitcoin.org. Here you can choose from lots of wallets supported by community: Bitcoin Core, MultiBit, Armory and Electrum. Also, you can learn the features of each of them. They slightly differ from each other. For example, Electrum does not keep all the history of transactions (blockchain) on computer, but it refers to randomly selected network nodes. Bitcoin Core, on the opposite, keeps the full history on your PC and computer must always be online for checking if the data is accurate. Today the blockchain size for bitcoin is about 200 Gigabytes.
Many people recommend taking the security of a computer with bitcoin-wallet seriously. This is because in case fraudsters steal the wallet file, all your funds there will disappear. As nobody wants this to happen, you need to follow the basic rules of computer usage safety.
  1. Hardware wallets Hardware wallets are a device that keeps the private key. Their advantage is that it is switched off the Internet and there is no way anybody can hack this wallet.
If the device breaks or you lose access to it, you can restore it by entering 24 random words (so-called seed words).
- - -
And you can always find favorable rates for purchasing cryptocurrency on our site BestChange. com
We wish you reliable and profitable exchanges!
#bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #cryptowallet
submitted by bestchange_pr to bestchange [link] [comments]

Step-by-step instructions for how to rent hashing power and point it at pools mining XT blocks

Hi friends - These are step-by-step instructions for how to rent hashing power and point it at a pool that is working on mining XT blocks. You can think of this as an alternative to the big block bounty and block vote ideas; they're all ways of showing support for XT, though I personally think this approach is more interesting. It also makes for an actual increase in the XT-supporting hashing power on the network. If you're super-lucky, you may even end up with more bitcoin than when you started! ;)
I am fairly new to this myself, so I would be very grateful to any knowledgeable people who can point out mistakes in these steps or suggest ways that they can otherwise be improved.
1) Go to NiceHash
2) Click 'Register'
3) Enter (and then confirm) your email address. You'll be prompted to create a password.
4) Go to Account > Wallet.
5) Create a 'Deposit BTC address'. Once this address exists, you can send bitcoin to it. These are the funds you'll use to rent the hashing power. The funds you send will show up as 'Pending' until the transaction is confirmed and a few blocks deep in the blockchain.
6) While you wait for the funds confirmation, you can set up your target pool. To do this, go to Account > Manage my pools.
7) In the 'Add new pool' box, you will need 4 pieces of information: a. The IP address or hostname of the pool b. The port number c. Your username d. Your password
Once you've entered those four pieces of information, you can click the 'Pool verificator' link and NiceHash will do a quick handshake with the pool to make sure everything checks out. If that goes well, click 'Add' to save the pool.
8) Once your funds have moved over to the 'Confirmed' box, you're ready to rock. Go to 'Orders'. This page shows the list of currently active hashing rental contracts.
9) In the Algorithm drop-down on the right, select 'SHA256' (this is the hashing algorithm that bitcoin uses).
10) To create a new order, click 'Standard' or 'Fixed' (What's the difference?). Again, you'll need to provide 4 pieces of information:
11) Click Create. That's it! You're helping to move the revolution forward!
I hope this has been helpful. :)
submitted by Thanah85 to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

It's time for a break: About the recent mess & temporary new rules

Unfortunately, I was on vacation this weekend, so I was unable to prevent /Bitcoin from becoming messy. Sorry about that. I and other moderators more-or-less cleaned it up. Report anything that we missed.
Because people are still probably in a "troll-happy" mood from the lack of moderation, moderation will be increased for a while. Everyone needs some time to calm down. In particular, posts about anything especially emotionally-charged will be deleted unless they introduce some very substantial new ideas about the subject. This includes the max block size debate (any side) and /Bitcoin moderation. Also, people are continuously spamming links to inferior clones of /Bitcoin and the XT subreddit -- these links will be removed and the posters banned unless the links are remarkably appropriate for the given situation. When this sticky is removed, the rules will return to what they were previously.
It is possible that some people have been or will be banned too readily due to the increased moderation. If this happens to you, mail /Bitcoin with a justification of your actions, then wait 2 days and mail again if there's no satisfactory response, then wait 4 days, then 8, 16, 32, etc. If your mail to /Bitcoin is too high-volume, we may block all further mail from you, which will make it impossible for your to appeal your ban.

About XT

/Bitcoin exists to serve Bitcoin. XT will, if/when its hardfork is activated, diverge from Bitcoin and create a separate network/currency. Therefore, it and services that support it should not be allowed on /Bitcoin. In the extremely unlikely event that the vast majority of the Bitcoin economy switches to XT and there is a strong perception that XT is the true Bitcoin, then the situation will flip and we should allow only submissions related to XT. In that case, the definition of "Bitcoin" will have changed. It doesn't make sense to support two incompatible networks/currencies -- there's only one Bitcoin, and /Bitcoin serves only Bitcoin.
If a hardfork has near-unanimous agreement from Bitcoin experts and it's also supported by the vast majority of Bitcoin users and companies, we can predict with high accuracy that this new network/currency will take over the economy and become the new definition of Bitcoin. (Miners don't matter in this, and it's not any sort of vote.) This sort of hardfork can probably be adopted on /Bitcoin as soon as it has been determined that the hardfork is not absolutely against the spirit of Bitcoin (inflating out-of-schedule, for example). For right now, there will always be too much controversy around any hardfork that increases the max block size, but this will probably change as there's more debate and research, and as block space actually becomes more scarce. I could see some kind of increase gaining consensus in as soon as 6 months, though it would have to be much smaller than the increase in XT for ~everyone to agree on it so soon.
There's a substantial difference between discussion of a proposed Bitcoin hardfork (which was previously always allowed here, even though I strongly disagree with many things posted) and promoting software that is programmed to diverge into a competing network/currency. The latter is clearly against the established rules of /Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin's technology will continue working fine no matter what people do, even the attempt at splitting Bitcoin up like this will harm the Bitcoin ecosystem and economy.

Why is XT considered an altcoin even though it hasn't broken away from Bitcoin yet?

Because it is intentionally programmed to diverge from Bitcoin, I don't consider it to be important that XT is not distinct from Bitcoin quite yet. If someone created a fork of Bitcoin Core that allowed miners to continue mining 25 BTC per block forever, would that be "Bitcoin" even though it doesn't split from the Bitcoin currency/network quite yet? (I'd say no.)

Can I still talk about hard fork proposals on /Bitcoin?

Right now, not unless you have something really new and substantial to say.
After this sticky is removed, it will be OK to discuss any hardfork to Bitcoin, but not any software that hardforks without consensus, since that software is not Bitcoin.

If XT is an altcoin then why aren't sidechains or Lightning altcoins?

/Bitcoin is about the Bitcoin currency and network. Lightning allows you to move the Bitcoin currency. Sidechains are on-topic in general because they are a possibly-useful addition to the Bitcoin network. It is possible that some specific sidechains might not be on-topic -- this isn't clear to me yet.
XT is programmed to create a separate currency and network, so it is not Bitcoin.

How do you know that there is no consensus?

Consensus is a high bar. It is not the same as a majority. In general, consensus means that there is near-unanimity. In the very particular case of a hardfork, "consensus" means "there is no noticeable probability that the hardfork will cause the Bitcoin economy to split into two or more non-negligible pieces".
I know almost for certain that there is no consensus to the change in XT because Bitcoin core developers Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it. That's enough to block consensus. And it works both ways: if Gavin and Mike are strongly opposed to Pieter's BIP, then this will also block consensus on that BIP.
Other than the core devs, big Bitcoin companies (especially Coinbase, BitPay, and exchanges) could block consensus, as could large groups of average users who are collectively capable of making reasonable arguments and exerting economic force (probably not just random unknown people complaining about nothing).
Even though consensus is such a high bar, I think that in practice any hardfork that gets consensus among the Bitcoin Core devs and makes it into Bitcoin Core has a good chance of succeeding. But again, the developers would just be spearheading the effort, and many others could block them if necessary.

But with such a high bar, 8 MB blocks will be impossible!

If consensus can never be reached on one particular hardfork proposal, then the hardfork should never occur. Just because you want something doesn't mean that it's ever reasonable for you to hijack Bitcoin from the people who don't want it, even if your side is the majority (which it isn't in this case). This isn't some democratic country where you can always get your way with sufficient politicking. Get consensus, live without the change, or create your own altcoin.
Hard forks are supposed to be hard. While some hard forks will probably be necessary in the long run, these hard forks will need to have consensus and be done properly or Bitcoin will die due to the economy being constantly shattered into several pieces, or as a side-effect of forcing through technically unsound changes that the majority of experts disagree with (like XT's 8MB block size).

Don't most experts want 8 MB blocks soon?

Not by any reasonable idea of "most experts" I can think of. For example, among people with expert flair on /Bitcoin, AFAIK any large near-term increase is opposed by nullc, petertodd, TheBlueMatt, luke-jr, pwuille, adam3us, maaku7, and laanwj. A large near-term increase is supported by gavinandresen, jgarzik, mike_hearn, and MeniRosenfeld. (Those 12 people are everyone with expert flair.)
I've heard concerns that some experts who oppose any large near-term increase have conflicts of interest. But many of them have been expressing the same concerns for years, so it's unlikely that any recent possible conflict of interest is influencing them. Also, if they believed that increasing the max block size would help Bitcoin as a whole, what reason would they have to prevent this? I don't see the incentive.
We don't need to trust the above list of experts, of course. But I for one have found the conservative position's arguments to be much more convincing than the huge-increase position's arguments. It's not reasonable to say, "You know a lot more than I do, and I don't see any fault in your arguments, but you must be trying to trick me due to this potential conflict of interest, so I'm going to ignore you."

Who are you working for?

I am not an employee of anyone but myself. As far as I know my only incentives for engaging in this policy are to make Bitcoin as strong as possible for ideological reasons, and in the long-term to increase the Bitcoin price. When I make policies, I do so because I believe that they are right. I am not being paid for my work on /Bitcoin or for creating certain policies.
It would have been far easier for me to simply allow XT. If I was a politician or a business, I probably would have bowed to community demands already. And on several occasions I have very seriously considered the possibility that I could be wrong here and the community right. But in the end I just don't see any way to both reasonably and consistently deal with XT and cases similar to XT except to ban them on /Bitcoin. Additionally, I am further motivated by my knowledge that a "hostile hardfork" like the one in XT is very harmful for Bitcoin no matter what the change entails, and that the change in XT is in fact amazingly bad.

See also

See my previous posts on this subject and the discussion in their child comments. Keep in mind that my comments are often downvoted to the point of being hidden by default.
Also, someone who could be Satoshi posted here. This email address was actually used by Satoshi before he left, and the email apparently did come from that email address legitimately (not a spoof). Whether he's actually Satoshi or not, I agree with what he's saying.

About majoritarianism

Just because many people want something doesn't make it right. There is example after example of this in history. You might reasonably believe that democracy is the best we can do in government (though I disagree), but it's not the best we can do with private and independent forums on the free market.
If you disagree with /Bitcoin policy, you can do one of these things:
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
The purpose of moderation is to make the community a good one, which sometimes includes causing people to leave.

This thread

You can post comments about moderation policy here, but nowhere else.
submitted by theymos to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Dear Greg (and other Core developers)

Dear Greg (and other Core developers),
Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way.
Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter.
When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now.
As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user.
With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core.
For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.
Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited.
So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it.
Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do?
I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that.
Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years.
The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?
The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart?
I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion.
Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid."
If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg?
Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words.
Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.
Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.
Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage.
Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire.
And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit.
So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant.
As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed.
Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense.
Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded.
Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor.
There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs.
Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win.
It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it.
But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone.
Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft.
Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight.
So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around.
You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.
Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right.
But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder.
Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg?
Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice?
Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore.
And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear.
I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.
That's all.
Alex
submitted by MobTwo to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Dogecoin Hype Video Competition: All 9 Winners and Final Remarks.

Video Contest Final Results!

Well shibes, the time has come. Here are the winners!

Final pool: Ð623,795 + Ð220,000 in BONUS PRIZES

Dogechain

1st Place Winner

zimonitrome - Ð is for Ðogecoin with 353 points!

2nd Place Winner

Deelekgolo - dogecoin.avi with 123 points!
  • Deelekgolo wins 20% of the prize pool, which comes to Ð124,759

3rd Place Winner

katiephampham - DogeCoin Kiss: An original song about the world's friendliest Cryptocurrency with 31 points!
  • katiephampham wins 10% of the prize pool, which comes to Ð62,379

Community Doge

Community doge was meant for a great video that simultaneously made the best use of independent music (soundcloud artists or similar). A few of them used songs very well, and a lot of you used songs provided by shibes- however I think audiospring did the best job of simultaneously making a great video while using great independent music (his own!) This was the crowd favorite at last night's dogeparty.
audiospring - DOGECOIN - TO THE MOON !! (DJC feat DRU) (CC)
  • audiospring wins 10% of the prize pool, which comes to Ð62,379

Captions Bonus prizes

These bonus prizes were created after a suggestion by shibemperor to include captions in the videos so that deaf shibes could enjoy them too. I decided to make prizes for captions instead of forcing the rule on everyone- especially because some people had issues getting their captions to work. The challenge here was to make captions that were really descriptive and would allow deaf shibes to feel the hype. They could be funny but needed to be informative too. Here are the winners!
penneydude - Dogepollo 11 Launch Footage (CC)
Stun_gravy - Dogecoin Space Program (CC)
3vans - DOGE xX_D0G3C0IN_Xx (CC)
  • Each of these shibes wins Ð40,000!

StakeMyRep 50k doggy bag via stakemyrep [+3]

This is a bonus prize. It's being split between Abacus88 for Ignition Dogecoin and Uther for - much wonder (CC), two runner-ups in the competition!
  • Each of these shibes wins Ð25,000!

Dogesgonewild 50k doggy bag via reader31

This prize is going to be distributed by reader31 to shibes who didn't get any prize doge.
Congratulations to all shibe artists who entered videos. To the winners, we will be getting in touch with you very soon. There was so much great content put out by this community in the past few weeks and it's been a pleasure to run the competition. There was a problem with the voting thread where videos with downvotes were minimized and harder to find. This was an unexpected problem, but unfortunately there was just a lot of downvoting. herbstwerk has offered some excellent suggestions here about changes to make in future contests. Some other criticism was made here.
Here's a list of all videos entered into the contest (HUGE thanks to hak8or or for help formatting the list). I encourage all artists to post in this thread so you can get tips!
NAD4 - Dogecoin (CC)
Bearaidz - Carl Sagan Explains Dogecoin (CC)
codi365 - DogeCoin | The Biggest New Cryptocurrency (CC)
edwood34 - Dogecoin: Moon Bound (CC)
intercommie - $$$ dogecoin $$$ (CC)
data-stream - It has begun. (CC)
JMusik - doge.wmv (CC)
csherratt - Dogecoin Hype Video
neonshaun - To the moon - doge launch (CC)
3vans - DOGE xX_D0G3C0IN_Xx (CC)
audiospring - DOGECOIN - TO THE MOON !! (DJC feat DRU) (CC)
garylachance - Doge-Powered Airport Invasion Party! (CC)
ZCham - And now...... Dogecoin (CC)
followthecoin - How to Buy Dogecoin (CC)
Surrealist23 - Such Dogecoin... (CC)
wurghi - DOGECOIN - My wallet is a galaxy! (CC)
griffinjennings - Doge promo video final (CC)
I_Hate_MTV - Dogecoin to the Moon! (CC)
herbstwerk - Dogecoin - The History According to Twitter (CC)
comment_sniffer - Introducing Dogecoin the Greatest Cryptocurrency (CC)
omelbourne - The Dogecoin Quest (CC)
bmanzzs - DOGECOIN.mp4
Deelekgolo - dogecoin.avi (CC)
Giles_Durane - Masterdoge.avi (CC)
Uther - much wonder (CC)
Stun_gravy - When I'm Dogecoin (CC)
ummjackson Dogecoin - such currency (CC)
jxfive - DogeCoin HypeVideo - After the Moon (CC)
wastinmylife - Dogecoin Improv Song (CC)
Abacus88 - Ignition Dogecoin (CC)
MartinBaeza - The Dogecoin Comes (CC)
likl3sfuhjh - Dogecoin - Be Ready (CC)
Nitrouspony - Dogecoin for Everyone (cc)
Bearaidz - To reach for the Moon (CC)
TheMan103 - Dogecoin: To The Moon (CC)
ImHereToEndThis - Doge Coin: Eion and Kendra- This is Killing Me (CC)
penneydude - Dogepollo 11 Launch Footage (CC)
goatseadmin - A Message from the Goatse Lawyer (CC)
Stun_gravy - Dogecoin Space Program (CC)
kriegkopf - Dogecoin: Path to slumdoge millionaire. Get rich! (CC)
TheRogueGambit - Vada - Dogecoin To The Moon! (CC)
katiephampham - DogeCoin Kiss: An original song about the world's friendliest Cryptocurrency (CC)
DuckSwapper - How to cook bacon (CC, =X)
theBIGmaik - Doge Ad (CC)
orange_furball - Dogecoin Promo - Reddit Contest (CC)
Javolin - To The Moon Again
Captainrosco - Dogecoin - The Friendly Cryptocoin
SaysSportage - Spreading the DOGE!
zimonitrome - Ð is for Ðogecoin
@bullrunbullies - To The Mooon! (Dogecoin Anthem) B.R.B. (=X)
Take_My_Money - Dogecoinsss5
Phenxx - Dogecoin Such Currency Much Wow
SquyresSquyrington - To the Moon
DogecoinUniverse - Dogecoin: A 2014 Cryptocurrency Revolution
orlandostrike - Dogecoin - Mucho Dinero
HEHEHEno - Dogecoin Promotional Video #dogecoin #dogecoinvideocontest
subliem - To the Moon, and Beyond!
xmrcd - Dogecoin.
likl3sfuhjh - Dogecoin to the moon WOW
SuperYente - dogecoin.webm
sakkask - Doge trailer
sklite - Why choose Dogecoin over Bitcoin & Litecoin?
Adjam - Doge Hype Adjamo
dreppana - What is Dogecoin?
whitebudda - dogecoin
slippersleuth - DOGE DOGE GOING TO THE MOON
CarlosTarello - That's one small step for a shibe, one giant leap for mankind - to the moon!
IanM_56 - What's Dogecoin?
Itzbe - Epic to the Moon: A Tail of Two Shibes
breekagain - Dogecoin: One Begins the Journey Alone
dogehype - Dogecoin hype video FEATURING Xzibit (Slight NSFW)
vearc - Dogecoin Promo - wow
DebianSqueez - Dogecoin For Beginners! To The Moon in 15 Mins!
david2278 - Dogecoin
BarchNL - Dogecoin - to the moon!
dogem8 - HELP US HELP DOGES
Tyos101 - Such Journey. Much Moon. Wow
specialdoge - Dogecoin Destination: The Moon
hjras - It's Time for Plan Ð
MorpheneGaming - Dogecoin Promo #dogecoin #dogevideocontest
submitted by PercyPlz to dogecoin [link] [comments]

How to Find the Number of Subnets Valid Hosts Custom Waterline Tiles for Pool ✅ BEST STRESSER  WELCOME US BACK  SHADESECURITYTEAM.IO  L4 STRONG How to get IpAddress by sending link كيف تنرل ببجي الكوريه بطريقه سهله جدا☠️

Blockchain-based currencies use encoded strings, which are in a Base58Check encoding with the exception of Bech32 encodings. The encoding includes a prefix (traditionally a single version byte), which affects the leading symbol(s) in the encoded result.The following is a list of some prefixes which are in use in the reference Bitcoin codebase. ColossusXT is an open source, community driven, environmentally conscious cryptocurrency and an alternative to bitcoin that features better anonymity. It allows people to store and invest their wealth in a non-government controlled currency and make almost instantaneous and completely anonymous transfers with close to zero fees. Bitcoin Address Details. This is all the key data for the 169PxpRi4uq6Gh7mXBY6YfYHTFjvAJfqGs bitcoin address.Bitcoin Addresses are unique codes that are used to send Date Abuse Type Abuser Description; May 15, 2020 : sextortion : Aluino <[email protected]> Received from ip address: 66.163.184.234 "It seems that, XXXXX, is your password. Peer priorities are based on matching the connecting IP against a set of IP groups. For now, the only IP group is one that gives Tor exits a score of -10. This is to address DoS attacks that are being reported on the main network in which an attacker builds many connections via Tor to use up all the connection slots and jam the node for

[index] [14495] [10650] [25779] [28931] [8704] [17031] [4719] [3859] [30738] [15521]

How to Find the Number of Subnets Valid Hosts

So hello guys in today's video we are going to see that how we can actually get up address of any person just by sending link and it's one of the most famous attack I can also do it by social ... Good Morning Music VR 360° Positive Vibrations - 528Hz The Deepest Healing - Boost Your Vibration - Duration: 2:00:01. Nature Healing Society Recommended for you. 360° *Basically it mostly gets Bitcoin address from miners and we use their ip to determine their country and it mostly get bitcoin with high balance from Asia but its advisable to use Auto mode to ... Freedogeon, yatırımsız kazandıran bir kripto para sitesi. Ayrıca yatırım yaparak ta sistemden kazanç sağlayabilirsiniz. Videomu sonuna kadar izleyin,çeşitli yatırım zamanları mevcut ... The bitcoin client contains a hardcoded list of well known DNS servers which can return a list of ip addresses of bitcoin nodes. Alternatively, the bitcoin client can be given a static ip address ...

Flag Counter