Wlad van der Laan: Đừng mong đợi nguồn cung Bitcoin sẽ

Monero, the Most Private Cryptocurrency

Monero, the Most Private Cryptocurrency
Written by the CoinEx Institution, this series of jocular and easy to understand articles will show you everything you need to know about major cryptocurrencies, making you fully prepared before jumping into crypto!

https://preview.redd.it/ryvcznqspe451.jpg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fa91e26288d7b0a624113ed21172cc9fd5624a3
Monero, or XMR for short, is an open-source cryptocurrency that is safe, reliable, private, and untraceable. It can run on Windows, Mac, Linux, and FreeBSD, and is known as one of the most private cryptocurrencies. In 2018, Monero already ranked 10th in terms of trading volume, with its market value beyond 1 billion US dollars, an evidence for its great fame in this field.
By a special method in cryptography, Monero ensures that all transactions remain 100% irrelevant and untraceable. Perhaps after reading this article, you will understand why it is so special and popular in the increasingly transparent and traceable cryptocurrency circle (After all privacy comes first!).
In fact, many large cryptocurrencies in the world are not anonymous. All transactions on Bitcoin and Ethereum are made public and traceable, which means that anyone can eavesdrop on transactions flowing into and out of the wallet. That has given rise to a new type of cryptocurrency called “privacy currency”! These “privacy currencies” hide encrypted transactions by adopting specific types of passwords. One typical example is Monero, one of the largest privacy cryptocurrencies in the world.
Monero was created on April 18, 2014 under the name BitMonero, literally the combination of Bit (Bitcoin) and Monero (the “coin” in Esperanto). In five days, the community decided to change its name to Monero.
Interestingly, Monero’s creators valued personal privacy and tried to behave in a low-key manner with pseudonyms instead of the real names. It is said that the Monero major contributor’s nickname is “thankful for today”, yet this guy has gradually disappeared from public view as Monero developed day by day.
Unlike many cryptocurrencies derived from BTC, Monero is based on the CryptoNote protocol. It is also the first branch based on the Bytecoin of CryptoNote currency. Here is some information about Bytecoin: BCN, for short, is a decentralized cryptocurrency with a high degree of privacy; it has open-source codes that allow everyone to contribute to the development of the Bytecoin network; and the Bytecoin network provides global users with instant private transactions that are not traceable and at no additional cost.
Yet, as a branch of BCN, Monero outshines its parent in reputation by being different in two ways. First, Monero’s target block time was reduced from 120 seconds to 60 seconds; second, the issuance speed was cut by 50% (which reverted to 120-second residence later, with the issuance time maintained and the reward for each new block doubled). By the way, during the fork, the Monero developers also found a lot of low-quality codes and then refactored them. (That is exactly what geeks will do)
Monero’s modular code structure was also highly appreciated by Wladimir J. van der Laan, one of the core maintainers of Bitcoin.
Monero values privacy, decentralization and scalability, and there are significant algorithm differences in blockchain fuzzification, which sets it apart from its peers. How private is it? Here are more details.
1. Safe and reliable
For a decentralized cryptocurrency, decentralization means that its network is operated by users; transactions are confirmed by decentralized consensus and then recorded on the blockchain irrevocably. Monero needs no third party to guarantee the safety of funds;
2. Privacy protection
Monero confuses all transaction sources, amounts, and recipients through ring signatures, ring confidential transactions, and invisible addresses. Apart from all the advantages of a decentralized cryptocurrency, it is by no means inferior in safeguarding privacy;
3. Unable to track
The sender, the receiver and the transaction amount of all Monero transactions must be anonymous by default. The information on the Monero Blockchain cannot be matched with physical individuals or specific users, so there is no trace to track;
4. Scalable
Everyone knows that Bitcoin’sability to process transactions has always been limited by the scalability issue; as we have mentioned before in the introduction of Bitcoin, the block size of 1MB makes things difficult. But Monero’s developers have created a system that allows the network to process more transactions when needed; what’s more, Monero does not have any “pre-set” restrictions on block size.
Of course, this also means that some malicious miners may block the system with large blocks. To prevent this from happening, Monero has worked out countermeasures: the block reward penalty of the system.
On October 18, 2018, Monero’s latest hard fork changed the consensus mechanism algorithm to CrypotoNight V8. In this hard fork, it introduced the BulletProff bulletproof protocol, which can also effectively reduce the transaction fee of miners without disclosing transactions
It is said that Monero will issue about 18.4 million XMR in around 8 years. Moreover, it eclipses its counterparts in distribution — with no pre-mining or pre-sale, all block rewards will be left to miners by means of the POW mechanism.
Here is the reward scheme of Monero in two stages:
  1. Acceleration: mine 18132000 XMR before May 2022;
  2. Deceleration: Deceleration starts right after 18132000 XMR are mined, and there will be a reward of 0.6XMR for each block mined afterwards. In this way, the overall supply will be kept on a small scale and decelerated.
Monero is also excellent in its development concept that is designed to be anti-ASIC from the very beginning. Here is a brief introduction to ASIC (Special Application Integrated Circuit).
Due to the specificity of ASICs, specially designed ASICs can usually have much higher hashrate than general CPUs, GPUs, and even FPGAs — that makes hashrate excessively centralized and makes it vulnerable to the monopoly of single centralized institutions. Yet the cryptonight algorithm used by Monero allows most CPUs and even FPGAs to get involved and get mining rewards, instead of making GPU the only one that can efficiently mine.
In other words, Monero’s core development team will modify the consensus mechanism algorithm and have a hard fork after some time to ensure its strength against ASIC and the monopoly of hashrate.
However, although Monero has been designed against ASICs to avoid centralization, nearly 43% of its hashrate is still owned by 3 mining pools; in addition, it is not a BTC-based currency, making it even harder to introduce some elements. Of course, Monero is not that newbie-friendly, and thus has not been widely accepted.
Yet each cryptocurrency has its own features. As long as Monero keeps improving its privacy, it will definitely attract increasing followers. If you are interested in Monero, welcome to CoinEx for exchange or trade.

About CoinEx

As a global and professional cryptocurrency exchange service provider, CoinEx was founded in December 2017 with Bitmain-led investment and has obtained a legal license in Estonia. It is a subsidiary brand of the ViaBTC Group, which owns the fifth largest BTC mining pool, which is also the largest of BCH mining, in the world.
CoinEx supports perpetual contract, spot, margin trading and other derivatives trading, and its service reaches global users in nearly 100 countries/regions with various languages available, such as Chinese, English, Korean and Russian.
Website: https://www.coinex.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/coinexcom
Telegram: https://t.me/CoinExOfficialENG
Click here to register on CoinEx!
submitted by CoinEx_Institution to Coinex [link] [comments]

Reddcoin (RDD) 02/20 Progress Report - Core Wallet v3.1 Evolution & PoSV v2 - Commits & More Commits to v3.1! (Bitcoin Core 0.10, MacOS Catalina, QT Enhanced Speed and Security and more!)

Reddcoin (RDD) Core Dev Team Informal Progress Report, Feb 2020 - As any blockchain or software expert will confirm, the hardest part of making successful progress in blockchain and crypto is invisible to most users. As developers, the Reddcoin Core team relies on internal experts like John Nash, contributors offering their own code improvements to our repos (which we would love to see more of!) and especially upstream commits from experts working on open source projects like Bitcoin itself. We'd like tothank each and everyone who's hard work has contributed to this progress.
As part of Reddcoin's evolution, and in order to include required security fixes, speed improvements that are long overdue, the team has up to this point incorporated the following code commits since our last v3.0.1 public release. In attempting to solve the relatively minor font display issue with MacOS Catalina, we uncovered a complicated interweaving of updates between Reddcoin Core, QT software, MacOS SDK, Bitcoin Core and related libraries and dependencies that mandated we take a holistic approach to both solve the Catalina display problem, but in doing so, prepare a more streamlined overall build and test system, allowing the team to roll out more frequent and more secure updates in the future. And also to include some badly needed fixes in the current version of Core, which we have tentatively labeled Reddcoin Core Wallet v3.1.
Note: As indicated below, v3.1 is NOT YET AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD BY PUBLIC. We wil advise when it is.
The new v3.1 version should be ready for internal QA and build testing by the end of this week, with luck, and will be turned over to the public shortly thereafter once testing has proven no unexpected issues have been introduced. We know the delay has been a bit extended for our ReddHead MacOS Catalina stakers, and we hope to have them all aboard soon. We have moved with all possible speed while attempting to incorproate all the required work, testing, and ensuring security and safety for our ReddHeads.
Which leads us to: PoSV v2 activation and the supermajority on Mainnet at the time of this writing has reached 5625/9000 blocks or 62.5%. We have progressed quite well and without any reported user issues since release, but we need all of the community to participate! This activation, much like the funding mechanisms currently being debated by BCH and others, and employed by DASH, will mean not only a catalyst for Reddcoin but ensure it's future by providing funding for the dev team. As a personal plea from the team, please help us support the PoSV v2 activation by staking your RDD, no matter how large or small your amount of stake.
Every block and every RDD counts, and if you don't know how, we'll teach you! Live chat is fun as well as providing tech support you can trust from devs and community ReddHead members. Join us today in staking and online and collect some RDD "rain" from users and devs alike!
If you're holding Reddcoin and not staking, or you haven't upgraded your v2.x wallet to v3.0.1 (current release), we need you to help achieve consensus and activate PoSV v2! For details, see the pinned message here or our website or medium channel. Upgrade is simple and takes moments; if you're nervous or unsure, we're here to help live in Telegram or Discord, as well as other chat programs. See our website for links.
Look for more updates shortly as our long-anticipated Reddcoin Payment Gateway and Merchant Services API come online with point-of-sale support, as we announce the cross-crypto-project Aussie firefighter fundraiser program, as well as a comprehensive update to our development roadmap and more.
Work has restarted on ReddID and multiple initiatives are underway to begin educating and sharing information about ReddID, what it is, and how to use it, as we approach a releasable ReddID product. We enthusiastically encourage anyone interested in working to bring these efforts to life, whether writers, UX/UI experts, big data analysts, graphic artists, coders, front-end, back-end, AI, DevOps, the Reddcoin Core dev team is growing, and there's more opportunity and work than ever!
Bring your talents to a community and dev team that truly appreciates it, and share the Reddcoin Love!
And now, lots of commits. As v3.1 is not yet quite ready for public release, these commits have not been pushed publicly, but in the interests of sharing progress transparently, and including our ReddHead community in the process, see below for mind-numbing technical detail of work accomplished.
e5c143404 - - 2014-08-07 - Ross Nicoll - Changed LevelDB cursors to use scoped pointers to ensure destruction when going out of scope. *99a7dba2e - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - tests: fix test-runner for osx. Closes ##4708 *8c667f1be - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - build: add funcs.mk to the list of meta-depends *bcc1b2b2f - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - depends: fix shasum on osx < 10.9 *54dac77d1 - - 2014-08-18 - Cory Fields - build: add option for reducing exports (v2) *6fb9611c0 - - 2014-08-16 - randy-waterhouse - build : fix CPPFLAGS for libbitcoin_cli *9958cc923 - - 2014-08-16 - randy-waterhouse - build: Add --with-utils (bitcoin-cli and bitcoin-tx, default=yes). Help string consistency tweaks. Target sanity check fix. *342aa98ea - - 2014-08-07 - Cory Fields - build: fix automake warnings about the use of INCLUDES *46db8ad51 - - 2020-02-18 - John Nash - build: add build.h to the correct target *a24de1e4c - - 2014-11-26 - Pavel Janík - Use complete path to include bitcoin-config.h. *fd8f506e5 - - 2014-08-04 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Demote ReportInvalidCertificate message to qDebug *f12aaf3b1 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - build: QT5 compiled with fPIC require fPIC to be enabled, fPIE is not enough *7a991b37e - - 2014-08-12 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - build: check for sys/prctl.h in the proper way *2cfa63a48 - - 2014-08-11 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - build: Add mention of --disable-wallet to bdb48 error messages *9aa580f04 - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - depends: add shared dependency builder *8853d4645 - - 2014-08-08 - Philip Kaufmann - [Qt] move SubstituteFonts() above ToolTipToRichTextFilter *0c98e21db - - 2014-08-02 - Ross Nicoll - URLs containing a / after the address no longer cause parsing errors. *7baa77731 - - 2014-08-07 - ntrgn - Fixes ignored qt 4.8 codecs path on windows when configuring with --with-qt-libdir *2a3df4617 - - 2014-08-06 - Cory Fields - qt: fix unicode character display on osx when building with 10.7 sdk *71a36303d - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: fix race in 'make deploy' for windows *077295498 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: Fix 'make deploy' when binaries haven't been built yet *ffdcc4d7d - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: hook up qt translations for static osx packaging *25a7e9c90 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: add --with-qt-translationdir to configure for use with static qt *11cfcef37 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: teach macdeploy the -translations-dir argument, for use with static qt *4c4ae35b1 - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - build: Find the proper xcb/pcre dependencies *942e77dd2 - - 2014-08-06 - Cory Fields - build: silence mingw fpic warning spew *e73e2b834 - - 2014-06-27 - Huang Le - Use async name resolving to improve net thread responsiveness *c88e76e8e - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - build: don't let libtool insert rpath into binaries *18e14e11c - - 2014-08-05 - ntrgn - build: Fix windows configure when using --with-qt-libdir *bb92d65c4 - - 2014-07-31 - Cory Fields - test: don't let the port number exceed the legal range *62b95290a - - 2014-06-18 - Cory Fields - test: redirect comparison tool output to stdout *cefe447e9 - - 2014-07-22 - Cory Fields - gitian: remove unneeded option after last commit *9347402ca - - 2014-07-21 - Cory Fields - build: fix broken boost chrono check on some platforms *c9ed039cf - - 2014-06-03 - Cory Fields - build: fix whitespace in pkg-config variable *3bcc5ad37 - - 2014-06-03 - Cory Fields - build: allow linux and osx to build against static qt5 *01a44ba90 - - 2014-07-17 - Cory Fields - build: silence false errors during make clean *d1fbf7ba2 - - 2014-07-08 - Cory Fields - build: fix win32 static linking after libtool merge *005ae2fa4 - - 2014-07-08 - Cory Fields - build: re-add AM_LDFLAGS where it's overridden *37043076d - - 2014-07-02 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - Fix the Qt5 build after d95ba75 *f3b4bbf40 - - 2014-07-01 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Change serious messages from qDebug to qWarning *f4706f753 - - 2014-07-01 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Log messages with type>QtDebugMsg as non-debug *98e85fa1f - - 2014-06-06 - Pieter Wuille - libsecp256k1 integration *5f1f2e226 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - Merge branch 'switch_verification_code' into Build *1f30416c9 - - 2014-02-07 - Pieter Wuille - Also switch the (unused) verification code to low-s instead of even-s. *1c093d55e - - 2014-06-06 - Cory Fields - secp256k1: Add build-side changes for libsecp256k1 *7f3114484 - - 2014-06-06 - Cory Fields - secp256k1: add libtool as a dependency *2531f9299 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - Move network-time related functions to timedata.cpp/h *d003e4c57 - - 2020-02-16 - John Nash - build: fix build weirdness after 54372482. *7035f5034 - - 2020-02-16 - John Nash - Add ::OUTPUT_SIZE *2a864c4d8 - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - crypto: create a separate lib for crypto functions *03a4e4c70 - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - crypto: explicitly check for byte read/write functions *a78462a2a - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - build: move bitcoin-config.h to its own directory *a885721c4 - - 2014-05-31 - Pieter Wuille - Extend and move all crypto tests to crypto_tests.cpp *5f308f528 - - 2014-05-03 - Pieter Wuille - Move {Read,Write}{LE,BE}{32,64} to common.h and use builtins if possible *0161cc426 - - 2014-05-01 - Pieter Wuille - Add built-in RIPEMD-160 implementation *deefc27c0 - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Move crypto implementations to src/crypto/ *d6a12182b - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Add built-in SHA-1 implementation. *c3c4f9f2e - - 2014-04-27 - Pieter Wuille - Switch miner.cpp to use sha2 instead of OpenSSL. *b6ed6def9 - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Remove getwork() RPC call *0a09c1c60 - - 2014-04-26 - Pieter Wuille - Switch script.cpp and hash.cpp to use sha2.cpp instead of OpenSSL. *8ed091692 - - 2014-04-20 - Pieter Wuille - Add a built-in SHA256/SHA512 implementation. *0c4c99b3f - - 2014-06-21 - Philip Kaufmann - small cleanup in src/compat .h and .cpp *ab1369745 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: hook up sanity checks *f598c67e0 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: add libc/stdlib sanity checks *b241b3e13 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: autoconf check for sys/select.h *cad980a4f - - 2019-07-03 - John Nash - build: Add a top-level forwarding target for src/ objects *f4533ee1c - - 2019-07-03 - John Nash - build: qt: split locale resources. Fixes non-deterministic distcheck *4a0e46e76 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: fix version dependency *2f61699d9 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: quit abusing AMCPPFLAGS *99b60ba49 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: avoid the use of top and abs_ dir paths *c8f673d5d - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: Tidy up file generation output *5318bce57 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: nuke Makefile.include from orbit *672a25349 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: add stub makefiles for easier subdir builds *562b7c5a6 - - 2020-02-08 - John Nash - build: delete old Makefile.am's *066120079 - - 2020-02-08 - John Nash - build: Switch to non-recursive make
Whew! No wonder it's taken the dev team a while! :)
TL;DR: Trying to fix MacOS Catalina font display led to requiring all kinds of work to migrate and evolve the Reddcoin Core software with Apple, Bitcoin and QT components. Lots of work done, v3.1 public release soon. Also other exciting things and ReddID back under active dev effort.
submitted by TechAdept to reddCoin [link] [comments]

I recently recounted the history of the block size controversy for someone and thought I'd repost it here

Bitcoin development was initially led by an anonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto who created the project "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System"
The project mostly languished in obscurity until in late 2010 it was revealed that Bitcoin was being used to evade the ban on Wikileaks contributions. (A good summary of Bitcoin's early history can be found here.)
Satoshi was opposed to Bitcoin being used for something as controversial as funding Wikileaks, and in one of his last messages, wrote "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us." (link). Satoshi vanished shortly thereafter.
When Satoshi disappeared, he left the project effectively in the control of Gavin Andresen, one of the early contributors to the project. Gavin has been characterized as something of a naive academic. It wasn't long before Gavin had been approached by the CIA and agreed to visit and do a presentation. So we know that Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar by 2011.
Bitcoin-as-introduced had an Achilles heel. To prevent a specific kind of denial-of-service attack, Satoshi had added a "block size limit" to prevent flooding attacks. Satoshi's plan was to raise the limit as usage increased. Satoshi and the early Bitcoiners such as myself did not envision that the limit might itself be a vulnerability. A near-complete history of the block size limit controversy is here. I'll attempt to summarize my experience with some references.
Now it's almost 2020, and by now we've all become much more attuned to the scope of what three-letter-agencies have been doing to manipulate social media platforms. But in 2012 that was tinfoil-hat stuff across most of the internet.
In 2012, the Bitcoin subreddit was one of the key places people went for discussion about what was happening in Bitcoin. That, and the bitcointalk forum. The history of what happened has been well documented with sources in places like here and here.
The TLDR is
Throughout all of this, Blockstream steadfastly argued that it didn't control the Bitcoin Core software. Blockstream pointed to Chaincode Labs who funded several key bitcoin developers and the MIT Media Labs "Digital Currency Initiative" who funded Gavin, Cory, and Wladimir. Gavin and Wladimir in particular had the authority to merge changes into the Bitcoin Core software and as such effectively could decide what did and did not go into the software. As an ostensibly academic organization, Gavin and Wladimir etc could act with intellectual honesty and without coercion.
Except Gavin left the Digital Currency Initiative in 2017, saying that while he wasn't pressured to quit, he "didn't want to feel obligated to any person or organization."
Fast forward to 2019, and we learn the fascinating news that the MIT Media Labs were funded in part by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, who it turns out just so happened to be a staunch advocate of the Blockstream approach. So really, Bitcoin development was corralled: Blockstream was paying a bunch of devs, and Blockstream-Friendly MIT Media Labs were paying the others.
If you're still reading this, you probably wonder what it is about the Blockstream strategy that is so "bad." Aren't they just proposing a different way to solve Bitcoin's problems?
The original idea for Bitcoin was a "peer to peer cash system" - - the idea being that if Alice wants to buy something from Bob, she can just give him some tokens - - just like cash.
The new vision of bitcoin promoted by Blockstream and Core is "store of value". Under this model, you buy Bitcoins like you might speculate on gold - you buy some and you hold it. Later, if you want to purchase something, you sell your Bitcoins for some other payment method (or use an IOU against a deposit, just like a bank), and use that for purchases.
It should be apparent after a moment of thought that the original concept (Alice hands Bob some cash which Bob can then spend how he likes) is vastly more disruptive than the model in which Alice buys Bitcoin on a government-regulated exchange, holds them hoping they'll appreciate in value, and then sells them for Euros or dollars. In model one, the currency is essentially outside the domain of gatekeepers, and could completely disintermediate the entire existing financial system just like Napster for money. In model two, Bitcoin is no more disruptive than shares of a gold fund.
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

PSA: The Bitcoin ABC Bug Disclosed by Corey Fields Would NOT Have Destroyed Bitcoin Cash (Details inside)

Top posts now on /btc are about the responsible disclosure of a bug (introduced by code refactoring) found in a release of Bitcoin ABC, the most popular node implementation for Bitcoin Cash. The way the tipster handled his discovery went beyond what anyone would be expected to do, and the BCH community is offering gracious thanks, for good reason. However, it's important, in addition to seeking to learn from the incident, to fully understand the dangers and probable outcomes of exploit. The tipster's Medium article somewhat exaggerates this claiming "transacting Bitcoin Cash safely would no longer be possible". That's not right, nor are highly upvoted comments in threads claiming this white hat "saved BCH". Why? Because the EXACT same thing happened to the blockchain now known as Bitcoin BTC or simply Core.
First, a quick recap on the bug. The "SIGHASH_BUG" as the tipster calls it would have allowed an attacker to create a transaction splitting the Bitcoin Cash blockchain into two incompatible chains, due to a validation check apparently removed in the code refactoring. The tipster correctly explains that because blocks are chained together, a difference in any block creates a completely incompatible future chain for any nodes that don't incorporate that change. In other words, all node software must remain in transaction and block lockstep at every point along the way as the blockchain grows. At any point where a difference is introduced, nodes accepting the difference as valid will fork or split from nodes that reject it as invalid. This is not a problem if there are say 100 total nodes and 1 node forks with some difference. The network would hardly notice. However, a substantial number of nodes, say 40 out of 100 would be more disruptive, because a significant part of the network, which underlies a real world economy of users and businesses would suddenly disagree about reality.
As stated the exact same thing happened before. I lived it. I can't recall the exact date, but it was I believe around March 2013. There was only one major Bitcoin blockchain (BTC), and Gavin Andresen was recognized as the lead software developer, along with four others whom he considered his closest peers - Jeff Garzik, Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille and Wladimir van der Laan. Mike Hean would have been included in that group but he primarily worked on a separate protocol codebase of his own creation (BitcoinJ). Again, the issue arose from changing the software and issuing a release containing the undiscovered bug. I logged into BitcoinTalk.org to see the community in a fair panic. People were posting memes about the Titanic sinking and popping bubbles. There was an urgent stickied alert from Pieter Wuille IIRC acknowledging the trouble with action items for those running nodes. The scene was chaotic but people found Bitcoin was experiencing its first unintentional "chain split".
It was later discovered how the bug came about. Database code was rewritten in a way nodes running oldenon-upgraded versions of the software would reject blocks seen as perfectly valid by those who upgraded. A large portion of (but not all) miners had upgraded when the split occurred. To resolve the issue Gavin Andresen reached out to miners and asked one side (IIRC) to revert back to the older version. This put the network back into agreement, with the forked blocks forever discarded. Two things made the situation quite a non-issue. The first is that (wisely) a prior rule had been introduced that newly mined coins could not be moved (spent) for 100 blocks, which is about 17 hours. This meant no economic activity could possibly have occurred on the "wrong" chain. Second, Gavin, being the upstanding, generous, caring person he is, gave miners on the losing side bitcoins he had sitting in an early faucet (Gavin invented the idea of faucets). So ultimately no harm was done. This is why it wouldn't have been the case BCH would have "died" either if it had actually gone through a splitting action.
A final thing I'll point out is this is a vote in favor of having more than one software implementation. Gavin later discussed this very thing at an MIT Bitcoin workshop. He reflected on a couple key things in hindsight about that bug. One is that even had he not reached out to miners to manually put them back into consensus he said things would still have been okay, because there would have eventually been a longer chain, which is ultimately what Bitcoin respects. Second, he posited this was why having multiple implementations is a good idea. A bug in one version is unlikely to be present in all versions, so a network well diversified is more bug robust, as there is less chance a critical bug affects a majority of the network. BitcoinABC is adopted by about 60% of the BCH network, and about half had upgraded, meaning had the bug activated then about 30% would have split away. However, even in the case 100% had upgraded and the bug activated, it would mean 60% of the network would disagree with 40% (nodes running other than Bitcoin ABC), so there would still soon be a longer chain. Network participants would then need to decide which software version to adopt to put 100% of the network back into consensus. So, again, disruptive, but clearly not "death" or inability to ever again transact.
submitted by cryptos4pz to btc [link] [comments]

Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.

Centrally planned blocksize is not a desirable feature - it's an insidious bug which is slowly and quietly suppressing Bitcoin's adoption and price and market cap.
And SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" hack isn't just a needless kludge (which Core/Blockstream/AXA are selfishly trying to quietly slip into Bitcoin via a dangerous and messy soft fork - because they're deathly afraid of hard fork, knowing that most people would vote against their shitty code if they ever had the balls to put it up for an explicit, opt-in vote).
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember:
You Do The Math, and follow the money, and figure out why Bitcoin has been slowly failing to prosper ever since AXA started bribing Core devs to cripple our code with their centrally planned blocksize and now their "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit poison-pill.
Smart, honest devs fix bugs. Fiat-fueled AXA-funded Core/Blockstream devs add bugs - and then turn around and try to lie to our face and claim their bugs are somehow "features"
Recently, people discovered bugs in other Bitcoin implementations - memory leaks in BU's software, "phone home" code in AntMiner's firmware.
And the devs involved immediately took public responsibility, and fixed these bugs.
Meanwhile...
So the difference is: BU's and AntMiner's devs possess enough social and economic intelligence to fix bugs in their code immediately when the community finds them.
Meanwhile, most people in the community have been in an absolute uproar for years now against AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize and their deadly Anyone-Can-Spend hack/kludge/poison-pill.
Of course, the home-schooled fiat-fattened sociopath Blockstream CTO One-Meg Greg u/nullc would probably just dismiss all these Bitcoin users as the "shreaking" [sic] masses.
Narcissistic sociopaths like AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CTO Adam and their drooling delusional attack dog Luke-Jr (another person who was home-schooled - which may help explain why he's also such a tone-deaf anti-market sociopath) are just too stupid and arrogant to have the humility and the shame to shut the fuck up and listen to the users when everyone has been pointing out these massive lethal bugs in Core's shitty code.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr, and Theymos are the most damaging people in Bitcoin
These are the four main people who are (consciously or unconsciously) attempting to sabotage Bitcoin:
These toxic idiots are too stupid and shameless and sheltered - and too anti-social and anti-market - to even begin to recognize the lethal bugs they have been trying to introduce into Bitcoin's specification and our community.
Users decide on specifications. Devs merely provide implementations.
Guys like Greg think that they're important because they can do implemenation-level stuff (like avoiding memory leaks in C++ code).
But they are total failures when it comes to specification-level stuff (ie, they are incapable of figuring out how to "grow" a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market by maximally leveraging available technology).
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos apparently lack the social and economic awareness and human decency to feel any guilt or shame for the massive damage they are attempting to inflict on Bitcoin - and on the world.
Their ignorance is no excuse
Any dev who is ignorant enough to attempt to propose adding such insidious bugs to Bitcoin needs to be rejected by the Bitcoin community - no matter how many years they keep on loudly insisting on trying to sabotage Bitcoin like this.
The toxic influence and delusional lies of AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are directly to blame for the slow-motion disaster happening in Bitcoin right now - where Bitcoin's market cap has continued to fall from 100% towards 60% - and is continuing to drop.
When bitcoin drops below 50%, most of the capital will be in altcoins. All they had to do was increase the block size to 2mb as they promised. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68219y/when_bitcoin_drops_below_50_most_of_the_capital/
u/FormerlyEarlyAdopter : "I predict one thing. The moment Bitcoin hard-forks away from Core clowns, all the shit-coins out there will have a major sell-off." ... u/awemany : "Yes, I expect exactly the same. The Bitcoin dominance index will jump above 95% again."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yfcsw/uformerlyearlyadopter_i_predict_one_thing_the/
Market volume (ie, blocksize) should be decided by the market - not based on some arbitrary number that some ignorant dev pulled out of their ass
For any healthy cryptocurrency, market price and market capitalization and market volume (a/k/a "blocksize") are determined by the market - not by any dev team, not by central bankers from AXA, not by economically ignorant devs like Adam and Greg (or that other useless idiot - Core "Lead Maintainer" Wladimir van der Laan), not by some drooling pathological delusional authoritarian freak like Luke-Jr, and not by some petty tyrant and internet squatter and communmity-destroyer like Theymos.
The only way that Bitcoin can survive and prosper is if we, as a community, denounce and reject these pathological "centralized blocksize" control freaks like Adam and Greg and Luke and Theymos who are trying to use tricks like fiat and censorship and lies (in collusion with their army of trolls organized and unleashed by the Dragons Den) to impose their ignorance and insanity on our currency.
These losers might be too ignorant and anti-social to even begin to understand the fact that they are attempting to sabotage Bitcoin.
But their ignorance is no excuse. And Bitcoin is getting ready to move on and abandon these losers.
There are many devs who are much better than Greg, Adam and Luke-Jr
A memory leak is an implementation error, and a centrally planned blocksize is a specification error - and both types of errors will be avoided and removed by smart devs who listen to the community.
There are plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in C++ - plus plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in other languages as well, such as:
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos are being exposed as miserable failures
AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, their drooling attack dog Luke-Jr and their censor Theymos (and all the idiot small-blockheads, trolls, and shills who swallow the propaganda and lies cooked up in the Dragons Den) are being exposed more and more every day as miserable failures.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos had the arrogance and the hubris to want to be "trusted" as "leaders".
But Bitcoin is the world's first cryptocurrency - so it doesn't need trust, and it doesn't need leaders. It is decentralized and trustless.
C++ devs should not be deciding Bitcoin's volume. The market should decide.
It's not suprising that a guy like "One-Meg Greg" who adopts a nick like u/nullc (because he spends most of his life worrying about low-level details like how to avoid null pointer errors in C++ while the second-most-powerful fiat finance corporation in the world AXA is throwing tens of millions of dollars of fiat at his company to reward him for being a "useful idiot") has turned to be not very good at seeing the "big picture" of Bitcoin economics.
So it also comes as no suprise that Greg Maxwell - who wanted to be the "leader" of Bitcoin - has turned out to be one of most harmful people in Bitcoin when it comes to things like growing a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market and economy.
All the innovation and growth and discussion in cryptocurrencies is happening everywhere else - not at AXA-funded Blockstream and r\bitcoin (and the recently discovered Dragons Den, where they plan their destructive social engineering campaigns).
Those are the censored centralized cesspools financed by central bankers and overrun by loser devs and the mindless trolls who follow them - and supported by inefficient miners who want to cripple Bitcoin with centrally planned blocksize (and dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit).
Bitcoin is moving on to bigger blocks and much higher prices - leaving AXA-funded Blockstream's crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust
Let them stagnate in their crippled shit-coin with its centrally planned, artificial, arbitrary 1MB 1.7MB blocksize, and SegWit's Anyone-Can-Spend hack kludge poison-pill.
Bitcoin is moving on without these tyrants and liars and losers and sociopaths - and we're going to leave their crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust.
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y9qtg/coreblockstream_are_now_in_the_k%C3%BCblerross/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco

Summary (TL;DR)

Many people who study the financial crisis which started in 2008 know about "MERS", or "Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems" - a company / database containing over 62 million mortgages.
(The word "mortgages" may be unfamiliar to some non-English speakers - since it is not a cognate with most other languages. In French, they say "hypothèques", or "hipotecas" in Spanish, "Hypotheken" in German, etc).
The goal of MERS was to "optimize" the process of transferring "title" (legal ownership) of real-estate mortgages, from one owner to another.
But instead, in the 2010 "foreclosure crisis", MERS caused tens of billions of dollars in losses and damages - due to the "ususual" way it handled the crucial "ownership data" for real-estate mortgages - the data at the very heart of the database.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22foreclosure+fraud%22+%22robo+signing%22+MERS&t=h_&ia=web
How did MERS handle this crucial "ownership data" for real-estate mortgages?
The "brilliant" idea behind MERS to "optimize" the process of conveying (transferring) mortgages was to separate - and eventually delete - all the data proving who transferred what to whom!
Hmm... that sounds vaguely familiar. What does that remind me of?
SegWit separating and then deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for bitcoins sounds a lot like MERS separating and then deleting the "chain of (legal) title" for mortgages.
So, SegWit and MERS have a lot in common:
Of course, the "experts" (on Wall Street, and at AXA-owned Blockstream) present MERS and SegWit as "innovations" - as a way to "optimize" and "streamline" vast chains of transactions reflecting ownership and transfer of valuable items (ie, real-estate mortgages, and bitcoins).
But, unfortunately, the "brilliant bat-shit insane approach" devised by the "geniuses" behind MERS and SegWit to do this is to simply delete the data which proved ownership and transfer of these items - information which is essential for legal purposes (in the case of mortgages), or security purposes (in the case of bitcoins).
So, the most pernicious aspect of SegWit may be that it encourages deleting all of Bitcoin's cryptographic security data - destroying the "chain of signatures" which (according to the white paper) are what define what a "bitcoin" actually is.
Wow, deleting signatures with SegWit sounds bad. Can I avoid SegWit?
Yes you can.
To guarantee the long-term cryptographic, legal and financial security of your bitcoins:

Details

MERS = "The dog ate your mortgage's chain of title".
SegWit = "The dog ate your bitcoin's chain of signatures."
Wall Street-backed MERS = AXA-backed SegWit
It is probably no coincidence that:
How is AXA related to Blockstream?
Insurance multinational AXA, while not a household name, is actually the second-most-connected "fiat finance" firm in the world.
AXA's former CEO Pierre Castries was head of the secretive Bilderberg Group of the world's ultra-rich. (Recently, he moved on to HSBC.)
Due to AXA's massive exposure to derivatives (bigger than any other insurance company), it is reasonable to assume that AXA would be destroyed if Bitcoin reaches trillions of dollars in market cap as a major "counterparty-free" asset class - which would actually be quite easy using simple & safe on-chain scaling - ie, just using bigger blocks, and no SegWit.
So, the above facts provide one plausible explanation of why AXA-owned Blockstream seems to be quietly trying to undermine Bitcoin...
Do any Core / Blockstream devs and supporters know about MERS - and recognize its dangerous parallels with SegWit?
It would be interesting to hear from some of the "prominent" Core / Blockstream devs and supporters listed below to find out if they are aware of the dangerous similarities between SegWit and MERS:
Finally, it could also be interesting to hear from:
Core / Blockstream devs might not know about MERS - but AXA definitely does
While it is likely that most or all Core / Blockstream devs do not know about the MERS fiasco...
...it is 100% certain that people at AXA (the main owners of Blockstream) do know about MERS.
This is because the global financial crisis which started in 2008 was caused by:
The major financial media and blogs (Naked Capitalism, Zero Hedge, Credit Slips, Washington's Blog, etc.) covered MERS extensively:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anakedcapitalism.com+mers&t=h_&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Azerohedge.com+mers&t=h_&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Acreditslips.org+mers&t=h_&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonsblog.com+mers&t=h_&ia=web
So people at all the major "fiat finance firms" such as AXA would of course be aware of CDOs, MBSs and MERS - since these have been "hot topics" in their industry since the start of the global financial crisis in 2008.
Eerie parallels between MERS and SegWit
Read the analysis below of MERS by legal scholar Christopher Peterson - and see if you notice the eerie parallels with SegWit (with added emphasis in bold, and commentary in square brackets):
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3399&context=wmlr
Loans originated with MERS as the original mortgagee purport to separate the borrower’s promissory note, which is made payable to the originating lender, from the borrower’s conveyance of a mortgage, which purportedly is granted to MERS. If this separation is legally incorrect - as every state supreme court looking at the issue has agreed - then the security agreements do not name an actual mortgagee or beneficiary.
The mortgage industry, however, has premised its proxy recording strategy on this separation, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “the note and mortgage are inseparable.” [Compare with the language from Satoshi's whitepaper: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."]
If today’s courts take the Carpenter decision at its word, then what do we make of a document purporting to create a mortgage entirely independent of an obligation to pay? If the Supreme Court is right that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note, then a security agreement that purports to grant a mortgage independent of the promissory note attempts to convey something that cannot exist.
[...]
Many courts have held that a document attempting to convey an interest in realty fails to convey that interest if the document does not name an eligible grantee. Courts around the country have long held that “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void.”
The parallels between MERS and SegWit are obvious and inescapable.
Note that I am not arguing here that SegWit could be vulnerable to attacks from a strictly legal perspective. (Although that may be possible to.)
I am simply arguing that SegWit, because it encourages deleting the (cryptographic) signature data which defines "bitcoins", could eventually be vulnerable to attacks from a cryptographic perspective.
But I heard that SegWit is safe and tested!
Yeah, we've heard a lot of lies from Blockstream, for years - and meanwhile, they've only succeeded in destroying Bitcoin's market cap, due to unnecessarily high fees and unnecessarily slow transactions.
Now, in response to those legal-based criticisms of SegWit in the article from nChain, several so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" have tried to rebut that those arguments from nChain were somehow "flawed".
But if you read the rebuttals of these "Bitcoin legal experts", they sound a lot like the clueless "experts" who were cheerleading MERS for its "efficiency" - and who ended up costing tens billions of dollars in losses when the "chain of title" for mortgages held in the MERS database became "clouded" after all the crucial "ownership data" got deleted in the name of "efficiency" and "optimization".
In their attempt to rebut the article by nChain, these so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" use soothing language like "optimization" and "pragmatic" to try to lull you into believing that deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for your bitcoins will be just as safe as deleting the "chain of (legal) notes" for mortgages:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-legal-experts-nchain-segwit-criticisms-flawed/
The (unsigned!) article on CoinDesk attempting to rebut Nguyen's article on nChain starts by stating:
Nguyen's criticisms fly in the face of what has emerged as broad support for the network optimization, which has been largely embraced by the network's developers, miners and startups as a pragmatic step forward.
Then it goes on to quote "Bitcoin legal experts" who claim that using SegWit to delete Bitcoin's cryptographic signatures will be just fine:
Marco Santori, a fintech lawyer who leads the blockchain tech team at Cooley LLP, for example, took issue with what he argued was the confused framing of the allegation.
Santori told CoinDesk:
"It took the concept of what is a legal contract, and took the position that if you have a blockchain signature it has something to do with a legal contract."
And:
Stephen Palley, counsel at Washington, DC, law firm Anderson Kill, remarked similarly that the argument perhaps put too much weight on the idea that the "signatures" involved in executing transactions on the bitcoin blockchain were or should be equivalent to signatures used in digital documents.
"It elides the distinction between signature and witness data and a digital signature, and they're two different things," Palley said.
And:
"There are other ways to cryptographically prove a transaction is correctly signed other than having a full node," said BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp. "The assumption that if a transaction is in the blockchain, it's probably valid, is a fairly good guarantee."
Legal experts asserted that, because of this design, it's possible to prove that the transaction occurred between parties, even if those involved did not store signatures.
For this reason, Coin Center director Jerry Brito argued that nChain is overstating the issues that would arise from the absence of this data.
"If you have one-time proof that you have the bitcoin, if you don't have it and I have it, logically it was signed over to me. As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine," he said.
There are several things you can notice here:
  • These so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" are downplaying the importance of signatures in Bitcoin - just like the "experts" behind MERS downplayed the importance of "notes" for mortgages.
  • Satoshi said that a bitcoin is a "chain of digital signatures" - but these "Bitcoin legal experts" are now blithely asserting that we can simply throw the "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - and we can be "fairly" certain that everything will "probably" be ok.
  • The "MERS = SegWit" argument which I'm making is not based on interpreting Bitcoin signatures in any legal sense (although some arguments could be made along those lines).
  • Instead, I'm just arguing that any "ownership database" which deletes its "ownership data" (whether it's MERS or SegWit) is doomed to end in disaster - whether that segregated-and-eventually-deleted "ownership data" is based on law (with MERS), or cryptography (with SegWit).
Who's right - Satoshi or the new "Bitcoin experts"?
You can make up your own mind.
Personally, I will never send / receive / store large sums of money using any "SegWit" bitcoin addresses.
This, is not because of any legal considerations - but simply because I want the full security of "the chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - which, according to the whitepaper, is the very definition of what a bitcoin "is".
Here are the words of Satoshi, from the whitepaper, regarding the "chain of digital signatures":
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Does that "chain of digital signatures" sound like something you'd want to throw in the trash??
  • The "clever devs" from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of so-called "Bitcoin legal experts) say "Trust us, it is safe to delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of bitcoins". They're pushing "SegWit" - the most radical change in the history of Bitcoin. As I have repeatedly discussed, SegWit weakens Bitcoin's security model.
  • The people who support Satoshi's original Bitcoin (and clients which continue to implement it: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Classic - all supporting "Bitcoin Cash" - ie "Bitcoin" without SegWit) say "Trust no one. You should never delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of your bitcoins."
  • Satoshi said:

We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.

  • So, according to Satoshi, a "chain of digital signatures" is the very definition of what a bitcoin is.
  • Meanwhile according to some ignorant / corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of "Bitcoin legal experts") now suddenly it's "probably" "fairly" safe to just throw Satoshi's "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - all in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" - because they're so very clever.
Who do you think is right?
Finally, here's another blatant lie from SegWit supporters (and small-block supporters)
Let's consider this other important quote from Satoshi's whitepaper above:
A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Remember, this is what "small blockers" have always been insisting for years.
They've constantly been saying that "blocks need to be 1 MB!!1 Waah!1!" - even though several years ago the Cornell study showed that blocks could already be 4 MB, with existing hardware and bandwidth.
But small-blockers have always insisted that everyone should store the entire blockchain - so they can verify their own transactions.
But hey, wait a minute!
Now they turn around and try to get you to use SegWit - which allows deleting the very data which insisted that you should download and save locally to verify your own transactions!
So, once again, this exposes the so-called "arguments" of small-blocks supporters as being fake arguments and lies:
  • On the one hand, they (falsely) claim that small blocks are necessary in order for everyone to be run "full nodes" because (they claim) that's the only way people can personally verify all their own transactions. By the way, there are already several errors here with what they're saying:
    • Actually "full nodes" is a misnomer (Blockstream propaganda). The correct terminology is "full wallets", because only miners are actually "nodes".
    • Actually 1 MB "max blocksize" is not necessary for this. The Cornell study showed that we could easily be using 4 MB or 8 MB blocks by now - since, as everyone knows, the average size of most web pages is already over 2 MB, and everyone routinely downloads 2 MB web pages in a matter of seconds, so in 10 minutes you could download - and upload - a lot more than just 2 MB. But whatever.
  • On the other hand, they support SegWit - and the purpose of SegWit is to allow people to delete the "signature data".
    • This conflicts with their argument the everyone should personally verify all their own transactions. For example, above, Coin Center director Jerry Brito was saying: "As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine."
    • So which is it? For years, the "small blockers" told us we needed to all be able to personally verify everything on our own node. And now SegWit supporters are telling us: "Naah - you can just rely on someone else's node."
    • Plus, while the transactions are still being sent around on the wire, the "signature data" is still there - it's just "segregated" - so you're not getting any savings on bandwidth anyways - you'd only get the savings if you delete the "signature data" from storage.
    • Storage is cheap and plentiful, it's never been the "bottleneck" in the system. Bandwidth is the main bottleneck - and SegWit doesn't help that at all, because it still transmits all the data.
Conclusion
So if you're confused by all the arguments from small-blockers and SegWitters, there's a good reason: their "arguments" are total bullshit and lies. They're attempting to contradict and destroy:
  • Satoshi's original design of Bitcoin as a "chain of digital signatures":
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership."
  • Satoshi's plan for scaling Bitcoin by simply increasing the goddamn blocksize:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/
  • The the notorious mortgage database MERS, pushed by clueless and corrupt Wall Street bankers, deleted the "chain of (legal) title" which had been essential to show who conveyed what mortgages to whom - leading to "clouded titles", foreclosure fraud, and robo-signing.
  • The notorious SegWit soft fork / kludge, pushed by clueless and corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs, allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" which is essential to show who sent how many bitcoins to whom - which could lead to a catastrophe for people who foolishly use SegWit addresses (which can be avoided: unsafe "SegWit" bitcoin addresses start with a "3" - while safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses start with a "1").
  • Stay safe and protect your bitcoin investment: Avoid SegWit transactions.
[See the comments from me directly below for links to several articles on MERS, foreclosure fraud, robo-signing, "clouded title", etc.]
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Core/Blockstream attacks any dev who knows how to do simple & safe "Satoshi-style" on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, like Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. Now we're left with idiots like Greg Maxwell, Adam Back and Luke-Jr - who don't really understand scaling, mining, Bitcoin, or capacity planning.

Before Core and AXA-owned Blockstream started trying to monopolize and hijack Bitcoin development, Bitcoin had some intelligent devs.
Remember Mike Hearn?
Mike Hearn was a professional capacity planner for one of the world's busiest websites: Google Maps / Earth.
TIL On chain scaling advocate Mike Hearn was a professional capacity planner for one of the world’s busiest websites.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6aylng/til_on_chain_scaling_advocate_mike_hearn_was_a/
Mike Hearn also invented a decentralized Bitcoin-based crowdfunding app, named Lighthouse.
Lighthouse: A development retrospective - Mike Hearn - Zürich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4iZKISMZS8
Mike Hearn also developed BitcoinJ - a Java-based Bitcoin wallet still used on many Android devices.
Mike Hearn: bitcoinj 0.12 released
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2i6t6h/mike_hearn_bitcoinj_012_released/
So of course, Core / Blockstream had to relentlessly slander and attack Mike Hearn - until he left Bitcoin.
Thank you, Mike Hearn
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40v0dx/thank_you_mike_hearn/
Remember Gavin Andresen?
Satoshi originally gave control of the Bitcoin project to Gavin. (Later Gavin naïvely gave control of the repo to the an idiot dev named Wladimir van der Laan, who is now "Lead Maintainer for Bitcoin Core".)
Gavin provided a simple & safe scaling roadmap for Bitcoin, based on Satoshi's original vision.
21 months ago, Gavin Andresen published "A Scalability Roadmap", including sections called: "Increasing transaction volume", "Bigger Block Road Map", and "The Future Looks Bright". This was the Bitcoin we signed up for. It's time for us to take Bitcoin back from the strangle-hold of Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43lxgn/21_months_ago_gavin_andresen_published_a/
Gavin Andresen: "Let's eliminate the limit. Nothing bad will happen if we do, and if I'm wrong the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity." (June 2016)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6delid/gavin_andresen_lets_eliminate_the_limit_nothing/
Gavin's scaling roadmap for Bitcoin is in line with Satoshi's roadmap:
Satoshi's original scaling plan to ~700MB blocks, where most users just have SPV wallets, does NOT require fraud proofs to be secure (contrary to Core dogma)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6di2mf/satoshis_original_scaling_plan_to_700mb_blocks/
So of course, Core / Blockstream had to relentlessly slander and attack Gavin Andresen - until he basically left Bitcoin.
Gavin, Thanks and ... 'Stay the course'.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45sv55/gavin_thanks_and_stay_the_course/
In fact, Core and AXA-funded Blockstream devs and trolls have relentlessly attacked and slandered all talented devs who know how to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling for Bitcoin:
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5omufj/notice_how_anyone_who_has_even_remotely_supported/).
So who are the "leaders" of Bitcoin development now?
Basically we've been left with three toxic and insane wannabe "leaders": Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back.
Here's the kind of nonsense that /nullc - Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell has been saying lately:
Here's the kind of nonsense that the authoritarian nut-job u/luke-jr Luke-Jr has been saying lately:
Meanwhile, Adam Back u/adam3us, CEO of the AXA-owned Blockstream, is adamantly against Bitcoin upgrading and scaling on-chain via any simple and safe hard forks, because a hard fork, while safer for Bitcoin, might remove Blockstream from power.
In addition to blatantly (and egotistically) misdefining Bitcoin on his Twitter profile as "Bitcoin is Hashcash extended with inflation control", Adam Back has never understood how Bitcoin works.
4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47fr3p/4_weird_facts_about_adam_back_1_he_neve
The alarming graph below shows where Bitcoin is today, after several years of "leadership" by idiots like Greg Maxwell, Luke Jr, and Adam Back:
Purely coincidental...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Why does it seem so hard to "scale" Bitcoin?
Because we've been following toxic insane "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr, and Adam Back.
Here are two old posts - from over a year ago - when everyone already had their hair on fire about the urgency of increaing the blocksize.
Meanwhile the clueless "leaders" from Core - Greg Maxwell and Luke-Jr - ignored everyone because they're are apparently too stupid to read a simple graph:
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
Look at these graphs, and you will see that Luke-Jr is lying when he says: "At the current rate of growth, we will not hit 1 MB for 4 more years."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47jwxu/look_at_these_graphs_and_you_will_see_that_lukej
What's the roadmap from Greg Maxwell, Adam Back, and Luke-Jr?
They've failed to get users and miners to adopt their dangerous SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - so now they're becoming even more desperate and reckless, advocating a suicidal "user (ie, non-miner) activated soft fork, or "UASF".
Miner-activated soft forks were already bad enough - because they take away your right to vote.
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
But a user-activated soft fork is simply suicidal (for the users who try to adopt it - but fortunately not for everyone else).
"The 'logic' of a 'UASF' is that if a minority throw themselves off a cliff, the majority will follow behind and hand them a parachute before they hit the ground. Plus, I'm not even sure SegWit on a minority chain makes any sense given the Anyone-Can-Spend hack that was used." ~ u/Capt_Roger_Murdock
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6dr9tc/the_logic_of_a_uasf_is_that_if_a_minority_throw/
Is there a better way forward?
Yes there is.
There is no need to people to listen to toxic insane "leaders" like:
  • Greg Maxwell u/nullc - CTO of Blockstream
  • Luke-Jr u/luke-jr - authoritarian nutjob
  • Adam Back u/adam3us - CEO of Blockstream
They have been immensely damaging to Bitcoin with their repeated denials of reality and their total misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works.
Insane toxic "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back keep spreading nonsense and lies which are harmful to the needs of Bitcoin users and miners.
What can we do now?
Code that supports bigger blocks (Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic, Extension Blocks, 8 MB blocksize) is already being used by 40-50% of hashpower on the network.
https://coin.dance/blocks
http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
Code that supports bigger blocks:
Scaling Bitcoin is only complicated or dangerous if you listen to insane toxic "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back.
Scaling Bitcoin is safe and simple if you just ignore the bizarre proposals like SegWit and now UASF being pushed by those insane toxic "leaders".
We can simply install software like Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic - or any client supporting bigger blocks, such as Extension Blocks or 8 MB blocksize - and move forward to simple & safe on-chain scaling for Bitcoin - and we could easily enjoy a scenario such as the following:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

BITCOIN DIVORCE – BITCOIN CORE VS BITCOIN CASH EXPLAINED

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. Dell, Wikipedia and airlines have stopped accepting bitcoin. SatoshiDice and Yours switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users). Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin.
Roger Ver's companies used to use or still use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) are IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08)
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this. He pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have want they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

The day when the Bitcoin community realizes that Greg Maxwell and Core/Blockstream are the main thing holding us back (due to their dictatorship and censorship - and also due to being trapped in the procedural paradigm) - that will be the day when Bitcoin will start growing and prospering again.

NullC explains Cores position; bigger blocks creates a Bitcoin which cannot survive in the long run and Core doesn't write software to bring it about.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4q8renullc_explains_cores_position_bigger_blocks/
In the above thread, nullc said:
Core isn't interested in that kind of Bitcoin-- one with unbounded resource usage which will likely need to become and remaining highly centralized
My response to Greg:
Stop creating lies like this ridiculous straw man which you just trotted out here.
Nobody is asking for "unbounded" resource usage and you know it. People are asking for small blocksize increases (2 MB, 4 MB, maybe 8 MB) - which are well within the physical resources available.
Everybody agrees that resource usage will be bounded - by the limits of the hardware / infrastructure - not by the paranoid, unrealistic fantasies of you Core / Blockstream devs (who seem to have become convinced that an artificial 1 MB "max blocksize" limit - originally intended to be a temporary anti-spam kludge, and intended to be removed - somehow magically coincides with the maximum physical resources available from the hardware / infrastructure).
If you were a scientist, then you would recall that a blocksize of around 4 MB - 8 MB would be supported by the physical network (the hardware and infrastructure) - now. And you would also recall the empirical work by JToomim measuring physical blocksize limits in the field. And you would also understand that these numbers will continue to grow in the future as ISPs continue to deploy more bandwidth to users.
Cornell Study Recommends 4MB Blocksize for Bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4cqbs8/cornell_study_recommends_4mb_blocksize_for_bitcoin/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4cq8v0/new_cornell_study_recommends_a_4mb_blocksize_fo
Actual Data from a serious test with blocks from 0MB - 10MB
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3yqcj2/actual_data_from_a_serious_test_with_blocks_from/
If you were an economist, then you would be interested to allow Bitcoin's volume to grow naturally, especially in view of the fact that, with the world's first digital token, we may be discovering some new laws tending to suggest that the price is proportional to the square of the volume (where blocksize is a proxy for volume):
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46052e/adam_back_greg_maxwell_are_experts_in_mathematics/
A scientist or economist who sees Satoshi's experiment running for these 7 years, with price and volume gradually increasing in remarkably tight correlation, would say: "This looks interesting and successful. Let's keep it running longer, unchanged, as-is."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49kazc/a_scientist_or_economist_who_sees_satoshis/
Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dfb3bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/
Bitcoin's market price is trying to rally, but it is currently constrained by Core/Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit. Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream. The market will always win - either with or without the Chinese miners.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ipb4q/bitcoins_market_price_is_trying_to_rally_but_it/
If Bitcoin usage and blocksize increase, then mining would simply migrate from 4 conglomerates in China (and Luke-Jr's slow internet =) to the top cities worldwide with Gigabit broadban[d] - and price and volume would go way up. So how would this be "bad" for Bitcoin as a whole??
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3tadml/if_bitcoin_usage_and_blocksize_increase_then/
"What if every bank and accounting firm needed to start running a Bitcoin node?" – bdarmstrong
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3zaony/what_if_every_bank_and_accounting_firm_needed_to/
It may well be that small blocks are what is centralizing mining in China. Bigger blocks would have a strongly decentralizing effect by taming the relative influence China's power-cost edge has over other countries' connectivity edge. – ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ybl8it_may_well_be_that_small_blocks_are_what_is/
The "official maintainer" of Bitcoin Core, Wladimir van der Laan, does not lead, does not understand economics or scaling, and seems afraid to upgrade. He thinks it's "difficult" and "hazardous" to hard-fork to increase the blocksize - because in 2008, some banks made a bunch of bad loans (??!?)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/497ug6/the_official_maintainer_of_bitcoin_core_wladimi
If you were a leader, then you welcome input from other intelligent people who want to make contributions to Bitcoin development, instead of trying to scare them all away with your toxic attitude where you act as if Bitcoin were exclusively your project:
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
The most upvoted thread right now on r\bitcoin (part 4 of 5 on Xthin), is default-sorted to show the most downvoted comments first. This shows that r\bitcoin is anti-democratic, anti-Reddit - and anti-Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mwxn9/the_most_upvoted_thread_right_now_on_rbitcoin/
If you were honest, you'd tell us what kinds of non-disclosure agreements you've entered into with your owners from AXA, whose CEO is the president of the Bilderberg Group - ie, the major players who do not want cryptocurrencies to succeed:
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc ... So why the fuck has Core/Blockstream done everything they can to obstruct this simple, safe scaling solution? And where is SegWit? When are we going to judge Core/Blockstream by their (in)actions - and not by their words?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4jzf05/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
My message to Greg Maxwell:
You are a petty dictator with no vision, who knows some crypto and networking and C/C++ coding (ie, you are in the procedural paradigm, not the functional paradigm), backed up by a censor and funded by legacy banksters.
The real talent in mathematics and programming - humble and brilliant instead of pompous and bombastic like you - has already abandoned Bitcoin and is working on other cryptocurrencies - and it's all your fault.
If you simply left Bitcoin (which you have occasionally threatened to do), the project would flourish without you.
I would recommend that you continue to stay - but merely as one of many coders, not as a "leader". If you really believe that your ideas are so good, let the market decide fairly - without you being propped up by AXA and Theymos.
The future
The future of cryptocurrencies will not be brought to us by procedural C/C++ programmers getting paid by AXA working in a centralized dictatorship strangled by censorship from Theymos.
The future of cryptocurrencies will come from functional programmers working in an open community - a kind of politics and mathematics which is totally foreign to a loser like you.
Examples of what the real devs are talking about now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzahKc_ukfM&feature=youtu.be
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571066105051893
The above links are just a single example of a dev who knows stuff that Greg Maxwell has probably never even begun to study. There are many more examples like that which could be found. Basically this has to do with the divide between "procedural" programmers like Greg Maxwell, versus "functional" programmers like the guy in the above 2 links.
Everybody knows that functional languages are more suitable than procedural languages for massively parallel distributed environments, so maybe it's time for us to start looking at ideas from functional programmers. Probably a lot of scaling problems would simply vanish if we used a functional approach. Meanwhile, being dictated to by procedural programmers, all we get is doom and gloom.
So in the end, in addition to not being a scientist, not being an economist, not being honest, not being a leader - Greg Maxwell actually isn't even that much of a mathematician or programmer.
What Bitcoin needs right now is not more tweaking around the edges - and certainly not a softfork which will bring us more spaghetti-code. It needs simple on-chain scaling now - and in the future, it needs visionary programmers - probably functional programmers - who use languages more suitable for massively distributed environments.
Guys like Greg Maxwell and Core/Blockstream keep telling us that "Bitcoin can't scale". What they really mean is that "Bitcoin can't scale under its current leadership."
But Bitcoin was never meant to be a dictatorship. It was meant to be a democracy. If we had better devs - eg, devs who are open to ideas from the functional programming paradigm, instead of just these procedural C/C++ pinheads - then we probably would see much more sophisticated approaches to scaling.
We are in a dead-end because we are following Greg Maxwell and Core/Blockstream - who are not the most talented programmers around. The most talented programmers are functional programmers - and Core/Blockstream are a closed group, they don't even welcome innovations like Xthin, so they probably would welcome functional programmers even less.
The day when the Bitcoin community realizes that Greg Maxwell & Core/Blockstream is the main thing holding us back - that will be the day when Bitcoin will start growing and prospering to its fullest again.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Adam Back says "Blockstream Core" is a conspiracy theory. What do you think?

Trying to rebut the suggestion that Blockstream has a conflict of interest owing to its influence over Core development, Adam Back claimed:
I dont think anyone other [than] conspiracy theorists even accepts that "blockstream core" exists! blockstream has 1.5x full time developers working on bitcoin ...
Here are some facts supporting the idea Blockstream and Core are in bed with each other and can be regarded together as "Blockstream Core":
Core developers founded Blockstream
Blockstream was founded in 2014 by Bitcoin Core developers Gregory Maxwell, Dr. Pieter Wuille, Matt Corallo, Jorge Timón and Mark Friedenbach, as well as several non-Bitcoin Core developers including hashcash inventor Dr. Adam Back and venture capitalist Austin Hill. (source)
Also Luke Dashjr source
The Core devs are still listed as part of Blockstream's team.
At least 10 Core devs work for Blockstream (or 9 if you exclude Adam Back - should we?)
  1. Gregory Maxwell, 2. Matt Corallo, 3. Jorge Timon, 4. Mark Friedenbach, 5. Patrick Strateman, 6. Warren Togami, 7. Adam Back, 8. Pieter Wuille, 9. Gregory Sanders, 10. Glenn Willen Edit: 11. Luke Dashjr
Sources: Mike Hearn and Aaron van Wirdum, see also Blockstream.
Segwit
Core's contentious addition to Bitcoin, Segwit, is the baby of a Blockstream employee, Pieter Wuille: Blockstream are vocal in their advocacy of Segwit adoption.
The Hong Kong Agreement
The Hong Kong roundtable agreement was intended to prevent miners forking to Bitcoin Classic and ensure the adoption of Segwit. Several Blockstream personnel signed, but as Core members. Except Adam, who it is widely understood wished to sign as "individual", but changed this to "Blockstream" at the miners' insistence, the miners clearly regarding Blockstream itself as party to the agreement and underlining the common perception that Blockstream has significant influence over the development of Core code and that the two are intertwined.
Incidentally, anyone know who paid Adam Back's and the Core developers' expenses?
Discussion
It seems to me the facts above strongly suggest there is enough of a connection between Blockstream and Core that it is perfectly justifiable to regard them for practical purposes as "Blockstream Core".
Adam's statement that Blockstream has 1.5x full time developers working on bitcoin may or may not be true in some narrow sense, but when 9 or 10 Core devs work for Blockstream his statement is hardly full and frank disclosure. It smacks of trying to hide something: what is his game?
Perhaps he is afraid that if everyone realises "Blockstream Core" truly describes reality then everyone will also realise Core and its reference client may have been captured for Blockstream's private profit?
Anyway, do you have any more facts or observations? For example, do Core devs have Blockstream shares or options on shares? What influence does Blockstream have on Core and vice versa and how is that influence exercised?
And do you agree with Adam that the idea of "Blockstream Core" is just a conspiracy theory?
Edit: Some previous COI discussion: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/46que7/blockstream_meet_the_team/
Edit 2:Commits in the last year (source):
Blockstream: Greg Maxwell: 46; Jorge Timon: 17; Pieter Wuille: 163; Mark Friedenbach: 0; Patrick Strateman: 31; Warren Togami: 6; Adam Back: 0; Greg Sanders: 32; Glenn Willen: 0
Total commits for listed Blockstream developers: 295
Other: Wladimir Van Der Laan: 210; Marco Falke: 170; Corey Fields: 152; Jonas Schnelli: 87; Suhas Daftuar: 73; Alex Morcos: 65; fanquake: 56; Pavel Janik: 45
Total commits for listed non-Blockstream developers: 858
submitted by bitlop to btc [link] [comments]

Remember when Bitcoin was to be ruled by "math not men"? Whether you support bigger or smaller blocks, and whether you're "short" Bitcoin (you want the price to go down, so you can buy), or "long" (you want the price to go up, so you can sell) - you should still support *decentralized* governance.

Why should you support decentralized governance?
Because otherwise, the people involved in these centralized "meetings" (ie, the miners and the devs jetting around the world, making "important" decisions on things like "max blocksize" without your input) will become "insiders" - who can easily manipulate the price to make profits - behind your back, and at your expense.
The potential for manipulation
In the past, I've communicated with several experienced old-time traders and consultants from Wall Street regarding Bitcoin.
And many of them say they won't touch Bitcoin with a ten-foot pole because it's quite obvious to them that (in the absence of regulation), a new asset class like Bitcoin is horribly vulnerable to all sorts of behind-the-scenes manipulation.
They've seen it all before. They know all the ins and outs of how people with "insider information" can rig the market - and they can already see plenty of warning signs and alarm bells showing how easy it would be to pull off this kind of market manipulation in Bitcoin.
Now, I'm not in favor of government regulation for Bitcoin. I believe that it should be as self-regulating as possible.
But the only way to do this is if we get the governance and the software right.
Basically, what this probably boils down to is "baking in" a bit more governance into the software itself - so that things can be decided by everyone in the market as a whole, rather than by a small group of people at a private meeting.
Ethereum said "code is law", and Bitcoin said it would be governed "by math, not by men". But now look where we've ended up.
In the case of Ethereum, the promise was "code is law" - but then they discovered that the DAO code could be hacked, which raised difficult questions about how to interpret what the "law" really means.
In the case of Bitcoin (for those of us who remember that far back), the promise was to be "governed by math, not men".
Now flash-forward to the present.
After being stable for weeks, the price abruptly dropped by $30-40 today.
This was apparently due to broken promises from some meeting in Hong Kong in February, followed by another "friendly", "invite-only" meeting in Silicon Valley today - where previously promised solutions weren't delivered, and it was explicitly forbidden to offer any new ones.
So now, we're getting a vivid reminder that the "max blocksize" limit (as it currently stands) is a constant, hard-coded in a program, by a centralized group of programmers and miners - who are all fallible human beings, possessed by normal human drives and foibles and obligations, such as fear and greed, ego and hubris, payments to make and mouths to feed.
This means that a handful of insiders can easily manipulate this "max blocksize" number - deciding whether and when and how it will get changed, and how much, and how often - so they could potentially manipulate the price - depending on their own personal preferences.
For example, they could be "long" on Bitcoin and want to sell - or they could be "short" on Bitcoin and want to buy - or maybe they're just not terribly bright - or maybe they're into bike-shedding - or maybe they're just having a bad day - or a bad life.
Whatever the reason, in the end, they're going to keep on injecting their central planning and their personal preferences into your store of value, your medium of exchange.
And as long as you continue to accept this idea that they have the right to jet around the world, dictating how you can use your monetary system today - they're going to keep right on doing it.
Now, most of us do accept that certain parameters like a "max blocksize" could probably change at some point in the future - depending on the needs of the market, and the capacity of the hardware.
Our mission right now should be to make sure that the process for changing such a parameter is as decentralized as possible.
Currently, that's far from being the case.
But - no matter what you personally think or hope that number should be - you should support the idea that the process for determining that number should be as decentralized as possible.
Today, a bunch of devs and miners flew to an invitation-only meeting to (not) talk about setting this number.
You weren't invited to this meeting (or the previous one in February) - but the following "colorful" cast of characters were:
No matter who you are, you probably don't want a tiny, centralized cast of characters deciding on Bitcoin's monetary policy for you.
Like the title of this posts says, it doesn't actually matter whether you support bigger or smaller blocks, or whether you're "short" or "long" on Bitcoin.
It doesn't matter whether you're using Bitcoin to accept payments for your business - or doing "dollar cost averaging" to buy a little every week to put away for the future - or using cold storage to save for your retirement or for your kid's college education - or trying your hand at using "technical analysis" to do some day trading to see if you can outsmart the market.
It's hard enough trying to deal with day-to-day events and budget for your future and analyze the market and understand the economy - without also having to factor in stuff like: whether u/btcdrak and u/maaku7 and u/luke-jr and u/adam3us and u/kanzure might happen to be "long" or "short" on Bitcoin - or whether some of them might be simply clueless or out to lunch or got up on the wrong side of the bed today.
Remember how Bitcoin was supposed to be?
If you remember back to when you first got into Bitcoin, one thing that we all did at least agree on back then was the promise that it was shield us from many human idiosyncracies in our previous monetary systems - all the centralized invitation-only committees run by shady central bankers, with their back-room deals, meeting privately with no transparency, setting monetary policy affecting your life, behind your back and without your input.
So... we thought we had forever escaped terrifying economic curses such as the Keynesian Beauty Contest and the Greenspan Put and the Hank Paulson TARP and the Krugman Liquidity Trap and the Cyprus Haircut and the Brexit Slump etc. etc. - only to turn around and find out that we may have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, as we are now being haunted by even more terrifying curses such as the u/Btcdrak Scam and u/Maaku7 Macroeconomics and the u/Luke-Jr Pedantic Semantics and the u/Kanzure Transcript and the Adam Back Flip and the Theymos Dictatorship and the van der Laan Paralysis - all under the ever-present dismal shadow of the Tragedy of Gregonomics - and brought to you and paid for by the Fantasy Fiat of AXA.
Is there a solution?
As you can see from all of the above, the main problem facing Bitcoin right now is centralized governance.
Of course, code inevitably does have to be (centrally) written by someone.
But there are things we can do right now to minimize the amount of centralized intervention in Bitcoin's code and governance.
Whenever possible, we can and should favor code which requires a minimum of centralized interference.
Core/Blockstream have basically spent the past year or two tying themselves up in knots, and disrupting the community and the market - and maybe even suppressing the price - due to their stubborn, selfish, destructive refusal to provide parameterized code where the market can set certain values on its own - most notably, the "maximum blocksize".
Meanwhile, code such as Bitcoin Unlimited (and also Bitcoin Classic, once it adopts BitPay's Adaptive Blocksize Limit) puts the "governance" for things like "max blocksize" back where it belongs - in the hands of the users, in the marketplace.
Using more-parameterized code is an obvious technique known by anyone who has taken a "Programming 101" course.
Everyone knows that parameterized code is the easiest way to let the market set some parameters - avoiding the dangers of having these parameters set behind closed doors by a centralized cartel of powerful people.
We can and should all work together to make this a reality again - by adopting more-parameterized code such as Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic.
This will allow us to realize the original promise of Bitcoin - where "The Users and the Market Decide - Not Central Planners."
submitted by ydtm to btc [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]

Coinbase Speaker Series: Gavin Andresen of Bitcoin Foundation Scaling Bitcoin - Day 2 - Afternoon Session How To Get Involved In Bitcoin Core Development - Cory Fields THE FILTER #72: “Bitcoin Year in Review 2015” Bitcoin  Die feindliche Übernahme

Upgrade ‘As Soon As Possible’ In release notes for Bitcoin Core version 0.16.3, Wladimir van der Laan confirmed the vulnerability, known as CVE-2018-17144, had received an effective patch. The Bitcoin Core client remains the most popular comprising over 94% of all Bitcoin software implementations today. “A denial-of-service vulnerability… exploitable by miners has been discovered in Bitcoin software Genere Moneta elettronica (non in lista) Sviluppatore Satoshi Nakamoto (creatore) Wladimir van der Laan Data prima versione 3 gennaio 2009 Sistema operativo Microsoft Windows Linux macOS Linguaggio C++ Licenza licenza MIT (licenza libera) Sito web bitcoin.org A lead maintainer of Bitcoin’s most used software called Wladimir van der Laan has recently made some harsh affirmation about the future of the most famous and powerful cryptocurrency in the world. According to him, people should not expect Bitcoin’s total supply to ever change. Wladimir van der Laan, người bảo trì chính phần mềm được sử dụng rộng rãi nhất của Bitcoin, có những lời lẽ gay gắt dành cho những người tham gia vào một cuộc tranh luận đang diễn ra về việc liệu nguồn cung Bitcoin có được tăng lên hay không? Overseen by Bitcoin Core lead maintainer Wladimir van der Laan, this latest major release was developed over a span of about six months, by over a hundred contributors. Bitcoin Core 0.18.0 includes the typical range of performance improvements and bug fixes, as well as some new features. Here’s an overview of some of the most significant changes.

[index] [27888] [27663] [25122] [6286] [14702] [1142] [1068] [7676] [27495] [25533]

Coinbase Speaker Series: Gavin Andresen of Bitcoin Foundation

Top Bitcoin Core Dev Greg Maxwell DevCore: Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more ... and Wladimir van der Laan - Duration: 1:31:13. MIT Media Lab 8,390 views. 1:31:13. Developing ... Another year gone by in the Bitcoin world. Let us put a bow on it for you as we take a look back at the 2015 with all it’s chills and spills. We will review the year and even do a little ... MLTalks: Bitcoin Developers Gavin Andresen, Cory Fields, and Wladimir van der Laan - Duration: 1:31:13. MIT Media Lab 8,443 views MLTalks: Bitcoin Developers Gavin Andresen, Cory Fields, and Wladimir van der Laan - Duration: 1:31:13. MIT Media Lab Recommended for you Chef Entwickler Gavin Andresen wurde als "toxischer Einfluss" und "verwirrt" abgestempelt und dann aus dem Team geworfen, indem man seinen GitHub-Zugang unter dem Vorwand entzog, einen angeblichen ...

Flag Counter