Bitcoin XT Nodes and BIP 101 Mined Blocks Show Substantial

/u/theymos: -249 points from last 1000 comments. Worst Comment (-752 points): "Right. If Coinbase promotes XT to customers on coinbase.com and/or switches all of its full nodes to BIP 101 software, then Coinbase is no longer using the Bitcoin currency, and it doesn't belong on /r/Bitcoin."

theymos: -249 points from last 1000 comments. Worst Comment (-752 points): submitted by BobsBurgers3Bitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT Nodes and BIP 101 Mined Blocks Show Substantial Growth

Bitcoin XT Nodes and BIP 101 Mined Blocks Show Substantial Growth submitted by joseph_young_ to btc [link] [comments]

/u/theymos: -249 points from last 1000 comments. Worst Comment (-752 points): "Right. If Coinbase promotes XT to customers on coinbase.com and/or switches all of its full nodes to BIP 101 software, then Coinbase is no longer using the Bitcoin currency, and it doesn't belong on /r/Bitcoin."

theymos: -249 points from last 1000 comments. Worst Comment (-752 points): submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT Nodes and BIP 101 Mined Blocks Show Substantial Growth

Bitcoin XT Nodes and BIP 101 Mined Blocks Show Substantial Growth submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Reminder: Cobra-Bitcoin assisted and supported Theymos with agenda driven moderation that was designed to stop Bitcoin from functioning as a cash system.

Theymos implicitly said that Cobra was working with him to implement their agenda driven moderation campaign:
You must be naive if you think it'll have no effect. I've moderated forums since long before Bitcoin (some quite large), and I know how moderation affects people. Long-term, banning XT from /Bitcoin will hurt XT's chances to hijack Bitcoin. There's still a chance, but it's smaller. (This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it, and bitcoin.org)
(emphasis added)
source
Notes for those out of the loop:
So: 16th June 2015 was when Bitcoin XT was upgraded to include the change that would increase the block size thus allowing Bitcoin to continue to function as a cash system in the future.
Here is a snapshot of the bitcoin.org wallet page on 16th July 2015. Notice the absence of Bitcoin XT (a popular, safe and compatible version of Bitcoin).
If you have any doubt that Cobra-Bitcoin supported Theymos and agreed with him please see Cobra's comments in this December 2015 pull request (archived backup) to learn about what Cobra thought about Bitcoin XT.
I made this post because Cobra-Bitcoin is making positive remarks about Bitcoin Cash from time to time. People need to understand that this snake cannot be trusted. I also wanted to share a little of Bitcoin's history with the new comers here.
submitted by hapticpilot to btc [link] [comments]

How Bitcoin BTC Was Hijacked, and Why Bitcoin Cash Was Created.

From 2009-2015, Bitcoin BTC was run by programmers like Satoshi Nakamoto, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and promoted by people like Roger Ver. Most in this community tended to lean libertarian, and liked Bitcoin BTC's potential to take power away from governments & central banks.
Satoshi left the project. In the spirit of openness & freedom, Gavin & Mike naively made the mistake of letting too many bad actors (like Blockstream) gain access to the Bitcoin BTC project.
The Blockstream side had more money, and they had Theymos (who controls the #1 & #2 Bitcoin communities - rBitcoin & BitcoinTalk.org). As a result, they were able to push enough of the community into believing that small blocks were the way to go.
As Gavin & Mike were being pushed out, they tried to create the first "big block" fork of Bitcoin, called Bitcoin XT. The Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side hired a botnet operator to DDoS Bitcoin XT to death in its infancy.
From Mike Hearn:
"..After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks.."
Gavin & Mike were pushed out.
Even Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, was censored by rBitcoin back in 2015:
"I just unsubscribed rBitcoin and subscribed /btc" - Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase (largest fiat gateway for crypto), Nov 2015
Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin talks about the absurd censorship on rBitcoin:
By 2016, the Bilderberg Group & AXA funded Blockstream, and the takeover was complete.
Any talk about "big blocks" and "low fees" was banned.
In August 2017, another attempt to create a "big block" fork happened, thus creating Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And learning from the defeat of Bitcoin XT, this time around, Bitcoin Cash made sure they had the support of big miners, so the Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side couldn't use a botnet to DDoS it to death in the cradle.
So that is where we are today.
submitted by normal_rc to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Please audit my explanation of how Bitcoin BTC was hijacked, and why Bitcoin Cash was created.

How Bitcoin BTC Was Hijacked, and Why Bitcoin Cash Was Created.
From 2009-2015, Bitcoin BTC was run by programmers like Satoshi Nakamoto, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and promoted by people like Roger Ver. Most in this community tended to lean libertarian, and liked Bitcoin BTC's potential to take power away from governments & central banks.
Satoshi left the project. In the spirit of openness & freedom, Gavin & Mike naively made the mistake of letting too many bad actors (like Blockstream) gain access to the Bitcoin BTC project.
The Blockstream side had more money, and they had Theymos (who controls the #1 & #2 Bitcoin communities - rBitcoin & BitcoinTalk.org). As a result, they were able to push enough of the community into believing that small blocks were the way to go.
As Gavin & Mike were being pushed out, they tried to create the first "big block" fork of Bitcoin, called Bitcoin XT. The Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side hired a botnet operator to DDoS Bitcoin XT to death in its infancy.
From Mike Hearn:
"..After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks.."
Gavin & Mike were pushed out.
Even Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, was censored by rBitcoin back in 2015:
"I just unsubscribed rBitcoin and subscribed /btc" - Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase (largest fiat gateway for crypto), Nov 2015
Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin talks about the absurd censorship on rBitcoin:
By 2016, the Bilderberg Group & AXA funded Blockstream, and the takeover was complete.
Any talk about "big blocks" and "low fees" was banned.
In August 2017, another attempt to create a "big block" fork happened, thus creating Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And learning from the defeat of Bitcoin XT, this time around, Bitcoin Cash made sure they had the support of big miners, so the Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side couldn't use a botnet to DDoS it to death in the cradle.
So that is where we are today.
https://www.yours.org/content/how-bitcoin-btc-was-hijacked--and-why-bitcoin-cash-was-created-24c7314b8b8f
submitted by normal_rc to btc [link] [comments]

The Dirty, Nasty History of Bitcoin

From 2009-2015, Bitcoin BTC was run by programmers like Satoshi Nakamoto, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and promoted by people like Roger Ver. Most in this community tended to lean libertarian, and liked Bitcoin BTC's potential to take power away from governments & central banks.
Satoshi left the project. In the spirit of openness & freedom, Gavin & Mike naively made the mistake of letting too many bad actors (like Blockstream) gain access to the Bitcoin BTC project.
The Blockstream side had more money, and they had Theymos (who controls the #1 & #2 Bitcoin communities - rBitcoin & BitcoinTalk.org). As a result, they were able to push enough of the community into believing that small blocks were the way to go.
As Gavin & Mike were being pushed out, they tried to create the first "big block" fork of Bitcoin, called Bitcoin XT. The Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side hired a botnet operator to DDoS Bitcoin XT to death in its infancy.
From Mike Hearn:
"..After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks.."
Gavin & Mike were pushed out.
Even Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, was censored by rBitcoin back in 2015:
"I just unsubscribed rBitcoin and subscribed /btc" - Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase (largest fiat gateway for crypto), Nov 2015
Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin talks about the absurd censorship on rBitcoin:
By 2016, the Bilderberg Group & AXA funded Blockstream, and the takeover was complete.
Any talk about "big blocks" and "low fees" was banned.
In August 2017, another attempt to create a "big block" fork happened, thus creating Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And learning from the defeat of Bitcoin XT, this time around, Bitcoin Cash made sure they had the support of big miners, so the Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side couldn't use a botnet to DDoS it to death in the cradle.
So that is where we are today.
submitted by normal_rc to CryptoCurrency [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]

Bitcoin XT nodes being DDOSed?

We run chunkhost.com and a couple of days ago received a DDOS attack against one of our customers (as we sometimes do). Upon investigation, the customer explained he had been using the server as a bitcoin node for the backend for a bitcoin ATM for over a year with no issue. He just recently switched to XT to show support for BIP 101, and was summarily attacked!
Has anybody else seen this running XT?
submitted by zhoujianfu to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Our BlockStream Saviours and XT Infidels!

Dear Bitcoin community, we (your BlockStream Saviours) working hard to improve Bitcoin by getting rid of XT Infidels!
Here is what we have done so far!
  1. Successful DDOS against XT Nodes, you can see nice drop here: http://xtnodes.com/xt_nodes_alldata.php
  2. Successful DDOS against Slush Pool (https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3j63j2/slush_pool_under_ddos_attack/). Slush, this is what you get for ignoring our memo. For rest of you miner's, pay attention to what happened to Slush. We will let you know which blocks to mine. Keep voting for BIP100. It will soon be ready. https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3rs3vs/jeff_garzik_bip100_seems_unlikely_to_be_adopted/
  3. Created “authentic” letter from Satoshi http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html Very proud of this :) Got Gregory Maxwell to bless it! http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010327.html Thanks Gregory, we can always count on you (nice note on headers, pure gold).
  4. Kicked Mike Hearn out of #bitcoin-dev, he was talking too much anyway.. Good Job Wladimir J. Van, you should come join us at BlockStream! https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3n20nb/wheels_of_censorship_have_been_engaged_at/
  5. Censored Gavin out bitcoin-dev mailing list :) That was awesome! Unfortunately Evil BitcoinXT Infidels noticed. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3qi3w9/gavins_bitcoindev_post_gets_moderated_out/
  6. Started character assassination against Gavin and Mike Hearn (so far so good).
  7. Started successful censorship campaign at /bitcoin and bitcointalk.org with our Top Lieutenant Theymos. Theymos, you make us all proud.
  8. Had Theymos teach lesson to BIP101 supporters https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1028 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3rejl9/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_bip_101_is_the_best/cwpglh6 Theymos, you have our permission to merge pull request 1028. Coinbase, see section #2 (Slush learned their lesson). To make it more clear - We will erase you from Internet!
  9. Almost removed Gavin from Foundation (he refuses to cooperate)... https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/
  10. Halted block-size increase nonsense-madman-talk by starting Scaling Bitcoin Workshop x2. Kudos to our great leader Adam Back for this brilliant idea!
  11. Our Plan is simple! https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/
  12. Our Plan is working! https://forum.bitcoin.com/post6452.html#p6452
  13. Please return to /bitcoin and bitcointalk.org where it is safe and peaceful. We will make you feel comfortable!
  14. Please avoid forum.bitcoin.com and /btc at all costs.
Together We Will Succeed!
Your friends at BlockStream. XOXO
submitted by blockstream_fan to btc [link] [comments]

Amanda from The Daily Decrypt here. I'm looking to do a video special on what's going on with BIP 101, BitcoinXT/Bitcoin Unlimited, and potential hard forks. Answers to my questions here would help tremendously. Thanks for your time.

1 - Does Bitcoin Unlimited support BIP 101 natively, or can it be made to do so?
2 - If a Bitcoin Unlimited node sets their max accepted block size to 8MB or above, does that mean they are automatically "supporting" BIP 101?
3 - It looks like XT+BU nodes currently make up almost 13% of the network. Does anything like a fork happen at a certain threshold? If so, what is that percentage?
4 - What does a fork look like, in short?
5 - The block size has been just one contentious issue in Bitcoin. There are certainly more to come. Do you foresee that competing reference clients will be how problems are again solved in the future, a.k.a. vote by node?
6 - Which mining pools have made the switch to either XT or BU already?
7 - What decides what the "main chain" is in Bitcoin -- "hashing power" or node majority? Please explain.
Thanks so much!
-Amanda @TheDailyDecrypt
submitted by The_Daily_Decrypt to btc [link] [comments]

BIP 101 = KISS ("Keep It Simple, Stupid")

It's better (ie: safer) to just...
... rather than inventing a whole new level-1 protocol such as Lightning Network.
BIP 100 is more complicated than BIP 101 in terms of game theory, economics, or predictability - which means that BIP 101 is better - ie safer - than BIP 100.
LN is a non-trivial engineering task, with no guarantee of success. LN might be a great idea and we should be happy that people are working on it - but it sure ain't KISS.
Evolving viewpoints
A few years ago, I was actually suspicious of Mike (because of proof-of-passport) and Gavin (because of that meeting with the CIA) - and I preferred the idealistic and speculative mathematical and game-theory scenarios discussed by guys like Adam Back and Peter Todd. It was just so much more “clever” and hence more appealing to the side of me that likes complicated puzzles and idealized solutions in the realms of mathematics and programming.
I have the greatest respect for Adam Back as a cryptographer, mathematician and innovator. For example, his proposals for "homomorphic encryption" which he shared on bitcointalk.org could provide the groundwork someday for much more anonymity in Bitcoin.
And I have read and liked a lot of stuff from Peter Todd - from back when he dumped a bunch of his coins when cex.io got close to triggering a 51% mining threat, and his more complicated stuff regarding RBF. I like math and programming and I like clever complicated solutions!
But, after reading everything I could find in the past few months on both sides of the block size debate, I've finally been getting some serious reminders about how starry-eyed and idealistic and impractical mathematicians and programmers can be. (I include myself in this group by the way – although I’m not great at math or programming, I have studied and worked a lot in these areas.)
Mike has a lot of practical experience dealing with security and scaling at Google (plus also implementing LevelDB in Bitcoin, and implementing a Java client BitcoinJ paving the way for clients on Android), and Gavin has a lot of practical experience from his time as the lead maintainer of the original Bitcoin client - and they both show the kind of maturity and practicality and common sense (and understanding of scaling and game theory and economics and threat modeling) which are most important for ensuring the success of an open-source project.
Some reference material
If you have time, I recommend perusing Mike's posts at the link below, where you see that not only has he done some important coding on Bitcoin (changing from Berkeley DB to LevelDB, writing BitcoinJ) but he also has a solid experience and understanding of how to prioritize issues involved in major programming projects:
https://www.reddit.com/useMike_Hearn
And I also recommend the recent video from Gavin, where he shows a clear understanding of governance and consensus on open-source projects:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8l11q9hsJM
Meanwhile, although I was enthralled for a while with some of the innovative mathematical ideas from Adam and exotic game-theory threats from Peter, I no longer think that these things should be prioritized - to use a word which occurs frequently in Mike Hearn's discussion of threat models on Google Groups:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bitcoin-xt/threat$20model/bitcoin-xt/zbPwfDf7UoQ/4uySXHVZCAAJ
I myself can get heavily into mathematics and programming (and can often spend way too much time pursuing things in those areas which are not a priority), so I appreciate the "managerial" common sense and maturity displayed by people like Mike and Gavin to establish priorities and deal with the most important things first.
I also think that Mike and Gavin have a much more realistic and practical understanding of "governance" and "consensus": namely, for a network running open-source code, there is no such thing as "developer consensus". Anyone (including an anonymous developer - anyone remember Satoshi Nakamoto?) can release anything they want - and then it is up to the network to decide to adopt it or not. This is the only real meaning of consensus.
And, as Mike has stated elsewhere: if the code cannot be forked, then it's not open-source.
The biggest priority in the short term (for the next few years at least) is to provide a simple scaling solution to support more user adoption, making maximal leverage of the stuff we already have: the existing code base and the available hardware and infrastructure. This is the direction that Gavin and Mike have been focusing on.
(By the way, as Mike has also pointed out elsewhere: user adoption itself is a very important metric of decentralization. If hundreds of millions more people start using the block chain directly in the next few years, this grassroots popularity really strengthens the system against many significant threats, such as interference from hostile state or corporate actors.)
Meanwhile, I think Adam's work on LN is something which could be important for the longer term - while some of the areas which Peter have focused on (such as RBF and "scorched earth") might be merely marginal improvements - or might actually make the system worse.
Shower thought: What if Adam had been more of an early adopter?
The other day I had a "shower thought" where I wondered what would happen if 1,000 people all donated 1 BTC each to Adam Back right now.
Evidently Adam, while being a fine mathematician / cryptographer and the inventor of the Bitcoin forerunner HashCash, was actually not a big-time early adopter of Bitcoin, so he apparently doesn't have very much "skin in the game" in terms of actual stake as a holder on the current level-0 block chain.
I sometimes wonder how things would be now if Adam had "gotten in on the ground floor" as an early "hodler". It might make him more inclined to work on providing improvements to level-0 (the block chain), instead of going off in some other direction trying to invent some complicated new level-1 system (Lightning Network).
KISS
Regarding the block size debate, we should apply the "KISS" principle here: "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
BIP 101 follows this KISS approach, while LN and BIP 100 (and side-chains and other interesting proposed projects such as RBF) are non-KISS, and hence more risky, and hence should be deprioritized (or perhaps even deprecated). This is simply practical common sense based on the experience of successful managers of big projects including scaling open-source software.
In a nutshell: if space on the block chain is starting to look like it might get congested in the near future, and more hardware and infrastructure are available right now and in the foreseeable future, then we have a choice between...
...then it's a no-brainer that the first option is the safer choice to scale the network in the short term.
Yes I've heard all the arguments that increasing the maximum block size could lead to more centralization - but this is something we can keep an eye on in advance.
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/
Meanwhile, LN represents in some sense a kind of "hard fork" of an entirely different (ie much more complex) nature: Instead of simply changing just a single parameter while keeping 99% of the code and throwing more hardware at the problem, LN proposes making deep, major, "clever", non-KISS and unstudied changes in the architecture and topology (and game theory and economics) of the whole system itself.
And BIP 100 proposed a more-complicated voting procedure - giving miners too much say regarding the block size, and introducing more unpredictability (since the votes could lead to a wildly fluctuating max block size over the years).
Managers (and users and venture capitalists) love simple solutions where you can get 10x - 1000x - 10,000x scaling for the next few years (or decades) simply by throwing some more hardware and infrastructure at the problem, while leaving the existing codebase 99% unchanged. This is what BIP 101 does, and this is why people will adopt it instead of unproven, untried, untested, un-coded (vaporware) alternatives such as LN - or more complicated, unproven, untried, untested, riskier game-theory approaches such as BIP 100.
TL;DR: BIP 101 = KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid.
Just change a parameter and throw some more hardware at the problem and don't change anything else - ie, go with BIP 101.
submitted by ydtm to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been *suspended* (from *all* subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?

Dr. Peter R. Rizun is arguably one of the most serious, prominent, and promising new voices in Bitcoin research today.
He not only launched the first scientific peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal - he has also consistently provided high-quality, serious and insightful posts, papers and presentations on reddit (in writing, at conferences, and on YouTube) covering a wide array of important topics ranging from blocksize, scaling and decentralization to networking theory, economics, and fee markets - including:
It was of course probably to be expected that such an important emerging new Bitcoin researcher would be constantly harrassed, attacked and censored by the ancien régime of Core / Blockstream / Theymos.
But now, the attacks have risen to a new level, where some Reddit admin(s) have suspended his account Peter__R.
This means that now he can't post anywhere on reddit, and people can no longer see his reddit posts simply by clicking on his user name (although his posts - many of them massively upvoted with hundreds of upvotes - are of course still available individually, via the usual search box).
Questions:
  • What Reddit admin(s) are behind this reddit-wide banishing of Peter__R?
  • What is their real agenda, and why are they aiding and abbeting the censorship imposed by Core / Blockstream / Theymos?
  • Don't they realize that in the end they will only harm reddit.com itself, by forcing the most important new Bitcoin researchers to publish their work elsewhere?
(Some have suggested that Peter__R may have forgotten to use 'np' instead of 'www' when linking to other posts on reddit - a common error which subs like /btc will conveniently catch for the poster, allowing the post to be fixed and resubmitted. If this indeed was the actual justification of the Reddit admin(s) for banning him reddit-wide, it seems like a silly technical "gotcha" - and one which could easily have been avoided if other subs would catch this error the same way /btc does. At any rate, it certainly seems counterproductive for reddit.com to ban such a prominent and serious Bitcoin contributor.)
  • Why is reddit.com willing to risk pushing serious discussion off the site, killing its reputation as a decent place to discuss Bitcoin?
  • Haven't the people attempting to silence him ever heard of the Streisand effect?
Below are some examples of the kinds of outstanding contributions made by Peter__R, which Core / Blockstream / Theymos (and apparently some Reddit admin(s)) have been desperately trying to suppress in the Bitcoin community.
Peer-Reviewed Cryptocurrency Journal
Bitcoin Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal ‘Ledger’ Launches
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-peer-reviewed-academic-journal-ledger-launches/
Blocksize as an Emergent Phenonomen
The Size of Blocks: Policy Tool or Emergent Phenomenon? [my presentation proposal for scaling bitcoin hong kong]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3s5507/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/
Peter R's presentation is really awesome and much needed analysis of the market for blockspace and blocksize.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3me634/peter_rs_presentation_is_really_awesome_and_much/
In case anyone missed it, Peter__R hit the nail on the head with this: "The reason we can't agree on a compromise is because the choice is binary: the limit is either used as an anti-spam measure, or as a policy tool to control fees."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xaexf/in_case_anyone_missed_it_peter_r_hit_the_nail_on/
Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices: Visualizing the 92% historical correlation [NEW ANIMATED GIF]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nufe7/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3nudkn/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
Miners are commodity producers - Peter__R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l3g4f/miners_are_commodity_producers_peter_
Fees and Fee Markets
“A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit” — new research paper ascertains. [Plus earn $10 in bitcoin per typo found in manuscript]
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit", Peter R at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal 2015
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3mddr4/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
An illustration of how fee revenue leads to improved network security in the absence of a block size limit.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3qana4/an_illustration_of_how_fee_revenue_leads_to/
Greg Maxwell was wrong: Transaction fees can pay for proof-of-work security without a restrictive block size limit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/
Networks and Scaling
Bitcoin's "Metcalfe's Law" relationship between market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3x8ba9/bitcoins_metcalfes_law_relationship_between/
Market cap vs. daily transaction volume: is it reasonable to expect the market cap to continue to grow if there is no room for more transactions?
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nvkn3/market_cap_vs_daily_transaction_volume_is_it/
In my opinion the most important part of Scaling Bitcoin! (Peter R)
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3l5uh4/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l5up3/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
Visualizing BIP101: A Payment Network for Planet Earth
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uvaqn/visualizing_bip101_a_payment_network_for_planet/
A Payment Network for Planet Earth: Visualizing Gavin Andresen's blocksize-limit increase
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ame17/a_payment_network_for_planet_earth_visualizing/
Is Bitcoin's block size "empirically different" or "technically the same" as Bitcoin's block reward? [animated GIF visualizing real blockchain data]
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3thu1n/is_bitcoins_block_size_empirically_different_o
New blocksize BIP: User Configurable Maximum Block Size
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hcrmn/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/
A Block Size Limit Was Never Part Of Satoshi’s Plan : Draft proposal to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/
Truth-table for the question "Will my node follow the longest chain?"
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3i5pk4/truthtable_for_the_question_will_my_node_follow/
Peter R: "In the end, I believe the production quota would fail." #ScalingBitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3koghf/peter_r_in_the_end_i_believe_the_production_quota/
Decentralized Nodes, Mining and Development
Centralization in Bitcoin: Nodes, Mining, Development
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3n3z9b/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_development/
Deprecating Bitcoin Core: Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nhq9t/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations? - Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ijuw3/what_is_wrong_with_the_goal_of_decentralizing/
Potentially Unlimited, "Fractal-Like" Scaling for Bitcoin: Peter__R's "Subchains" proposal
"Reduce Orphaning Risk and Improve Zero-Confirmation Security With Subchains" — new research paper on 'weak blocks' explains
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xkok3/reduce_orphaning_risk_and_improve/
A Visual Explanation of Subchains -- an application of weak blocks to secure zero-confirmation transactions and massively scale Bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y76du/a_visual_explanation_of_subchains_an_application/
New Directions in Bitcoin Development
Announcing Bitcoin Unlimited.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynoaa/announcing_bitcoin_unlimited/
"It's because most of them are NOT Bitcoin experts--and I hope the community is finally starting to recognize that" -- Peter R on specialists vs. generalists and the aptitudes of Blockstream Core developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xn110/its_because_most_of_them_are_not_bitcoin/
It is time to usher in a new phase of Bitcoin development - based not on crypto & hashing & networking (that stuff's already done), but based on clever refactorings of datastructures in pursuit of massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of scaling
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xpufy/it_is_time_to_usher_in_a_new_phase_of_bitcoin/
Peter__R on RBF
Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3umat8/upeter_r_on_rbf_1_easier_for_scammers_on_local/
Peter__R on Mt. Gox
Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1zdnop/peter_rs_theory_on_the_collapse_of_mt_gox/
Censorship and Attacks by Core / Blockstream / Theymos / Reddit Admins against Peter__R
Peter__R's infographic showing the BIP 101 growth trajectory gets deleted from /bitcoin for "trolling"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uy3ea/peter_rs_infographic_showing_the_bip_101_growth/
"Scaling Bitcoin" rejected Peter R's proposal
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3takbscaling_bitcoin_rejected_peter_rs_proposal/
After censoring Mike and Gavin, BlockStream makes its first move to silence Peter R on bitcoin-dev like they did on /bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3syb0z/after_censoring_mike_and_gavin_blockstream_makes/
Looks like the censors in /bitcoin are at it again: Peter_R post taken down within minutes
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3tvb3b/looks_like_the_censors_in_rbitcoin_are_at_it/
I've been banned for vote brigading for the animated GIF that visualized the possible future deprecation of Bitcoin Core.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nizet/ive_been_banned_for_vote_brigading_for_the/
An example of moderator subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules at /bitcoin: animated pie chart visualizing the deprecation of Bitcoin Core
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3osthv/an_example_of_moderator_subjectivity_in_the/
"My response to Pieter Wuille on the Dev-List has once again been censored, perhaps because I spoke favourably of Bitcoin Unlimited and pointed out misunderstandings by Maxwell and Back...here it is for those who are interested" -- Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ybhdy/my_response_to_pieter_wuille_on_the_devlist_has/
To those who are interested in judging whether Peter R's paper merits inclusion in the blockchain scaling conference, here it is:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3td6b9/to_those_who_are_interested_in_judging_whethe
The real reason Peter_R talk was refused (from his previous presentation) (xpost from /btc)
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uwpvh/the_real_reason_peter_r_talk_was_refused_from_his/
[CENSORED] The Morning After the Moderation Mistake: Thoughts on Consensus and the Longest Chain
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8o50/censored_the_morning_after_the_moderation_mistake/
Core / Blockstream cheerleader eragmus gloating over Peter__R's account getting suspended from Reddit (ie, from all subreddits) - by some Reddit admin(s)
[PSA] Uber Troll Extraordinaire, Peter__R, has been permanently suspended by Reddit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/407j77/psa_uber_troll_extraordinaire_upeter_r_has_been/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik is killing it on the mailing list!

I thought that the mailing list is now completely brainwashed by pro fee-market folks. But Jeff is such a refreshing participant that I haven't lost all hope. However, there is a risk that Jeff will be the next person alienated from Bitcoin Core (maybe he would join the XT/BIP 101 efforts then?).
Anyways, some quotes with links:
The core design of bitcoin is that trustless nodes validate the work of miners, not trust them.
Soft forks move in the opposite direction. Each new soft-forked feature leans very heavily on miner trust rather than P2P network validation.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012009.html
 
For that reason, I've proposed, and am working hard, on an approach that includes Segregated Witness as a first step. It shows the ecosystem that something is being done, it kicks the can down the road, it solves/issues half a dozen other issues at the same time, and it does not require the degree of certainty needed for a hardfork.
Segregated Witness does not kick the can, it solves none of the problems

1, #3 - #8 explicitly defined and listed in email #1.

1) A plan of "SW + no hard fork" is gambling with ECE risk, gambling there will be no Fee Event, because the core block size is still heavily contended -- 100% contended at time out SW rollout.
2) We are only 100% certain that bitcoin works in the blocks-not-full-on-avg state, where there is a healthy buffer between the hard limit and the average block size.
There is remains major ECE risk due to the core block size freeze, possibly pushing the system into a new, untried economic state and causing major market and actor disruption. Users of the Service can still drift randomly and unpredictably into a Fee Event.
SW mitigates this - only after several months - only assuming robust adoption rates by up-layer ecosystem software, and - only assuming transaction volume growth is flat or sub-linear
Those conditions must go as planned to fulfill "SW kicked the can" -- a lot of if's.
As stated, SW is orthogonal to the drift-into-uncharted-waters problem outlined in email #1, which a short term bump does address.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012018.html
 
But what you're arguing for is that - despite being completely expected - blocks grew fuller, and people didn't adapt to block size pressure and a fee market, so the Core committee now needs to kick the can down the road, because we can't accept the risk of economic change. That sounds very much like a bailout to me.
I am arguing for continuing what we know works. We are 100% certain blocks-not-full-on-avg works, where a "buffer" of space exists between avg block size and hard limit.
Any other avenue is by definition speculation and risk. You think you know what a healthy fee market should be. Massive damage occurs to bitcoin if you are wrong - and I listed several
vis expectation, there is clear consensus and expectation that block size would increase, from 2010 onward. It was always a question of when not if.
Sticking with 1M presents clear risk of (a) economic fracture and (b) community fracture. It quite clearly risks massive change to an unknown system at an unknown, unpredictable date in the future.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012027.html
submitted by BIP-101 to btc [link] [comments]

It has taken me a long time, but I finally committed ALL of my resources to BIP 101 - bitcoin xt

I run two full nodes and a small miner. I switched on full node to xt when all of this started, but now I'm fed up. I switched my miner back to slush's pool today and I updated my other node to bitcoinxt. Sometimes it just feels refreshing to do the right thing.
If you want to move your miners to slush's pool and show your support for 8mb blocks (aka: bitcoinxt, BIP 101), set up an account at http://mining.bitcoin.cz and use these mining addresses:
stratum+tcp://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301 - General
stratum+tcp://us-east.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301 - USA
stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301 - Europe
Slush is re-enabling BIPB101: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/slush-pool-to-re-enable-bip-bitcoin-mining-1448902761
If you want to set up bitcoixt, it's pretty easy to just remove bitcoind and run the binary linked here: https://bitcoinxt.software/
You can find more information about bitcoinxt blocks here: http://xtnodes.com/
submitted by secret_bitcoin_login to btc [link] [comments]

"Eppur, se muove." | It's not even about the specifics of the specs. It's about the fact that (for the first time since Blockstream hijacked the "One True Repo"), *we* can now actually once again *specify* those specs. It's about Bitcoin Classic.

Right now, there's been a lot of buzz about Bitcoin Classic.
For the first time since Blockstream hijacked the "one true repo" (which they basically inherited from Satoshi), we now also appear to have another real, serious repo - based almost 100% on Core, but already starting to deviate every-so-slightly from it - and with a long-term roadmap that also promises to be both responsive and robust.
The Bitcoin Classic project already has some major advantages, including:
"When in the course of Bitcoin development ... it becomes necessary (and possible) to set up a new (real, serious) repo with a dev and a miner and a payment processor who are able to really understand the code at the mathematical and economical level, and really interact with the users at the social and political level...
(unlike the triad of tone-deaf pinheads at Blockstream, fueled by fiat, coddled by censorship, and pathologically attached to their pet projects: Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell and Peter Todd - brilliant though these devs may be as C/C++ programmers)
...then this will be a major turning point in the history of Bitcoin."
Bitcoin Classic
What is it?
Right now, it's probably more like just an "MVP" (Minimal Viable Product) for:
  • governance or
  • decentralized development or
  • a-new-codebase-which-has-a-good-chance-of-being-adopted-due-to-being-a-kind-of-Schelling-point-of-development-due-to-having-a-top-mineresearcher-on-board-JToomin-plus-a-top-dev/researcher-on-board-GavinAndresen-plus-a-really-simple-and-robust-max-blocksize-algorithm-BitPay's-Adaptive-Block-Size-Limit-which-empowers-miners-and-not-developers
Call it what you will.
But that's what we need at this point: a new repo which is:
  • a minimal departure from the existing One True repo
  • safe and sane in the sense that it empowers miners over devs
Paraphrasing the words of Paul Sztorc on "Measuring Decentralization", "decentralization" means "a very low cost for anyone to add...":
  • one more block,
  • one more verifying node,
  • one more mining node,
  • one more developer,
  • one more (real, serious) repo.
And this last item is probably what Bitcoin Classic is really about.
It's about finally being able to add one more (real, serious) repo...
...knowing that to a certain degree, some of the specific specs are still-to-be-specified
...but that's ok, because we can see that the proper social-political-ecomomic requirements for responsibly doing so finally appear to be in place: ie, we are starting to see the coalescence of a team...
...who experiment and observe - and communicate and listen - and respond and react accordingly
...so that they can faithfully (but conservatively) translate users' needs & requirements into code that can achieve consensus on the network.
As it's turned out, it has been surprisingly challenging to create this kind of bridge between users and devs (centered around a new, real, serious codebase with a good chance of adoption)...
...because (sorry for the stereotype) most users can't code, and many devs can't communicate (well enough)
...so, many devs can't (optimally) figure out what to code.
We've seen how out-of-touch the devs can be (particularly when shielded by censors and funded by venture capitalists), not only in the "blocksize wars", but also with decisions such as the insistence of Blockstream's devs to prioritize things like RBF and LN over the protests of many users.
But now it looks like, for the first time since Blockstream hijacked the one real, serious repo, we now have a new real, serious repo where...
(due to being a kind of "Schelling point of development" - ie a focal point many people can, well, "focus" on)
(due to having a responsive expert scientific miner like JToomim on-board - and a responsive expert scientific dev like Gavin on-board - with stated preference for a simple, robust, miner-empowering approach to block size - eg: BitPay's Adaptive Block Size)
... this repo actually has a very good chance of achieving:
  • rough consensus among the community (the "social" community of discussing and debating and developing), and
  • actual consensus on the network (eg 750 / 1000 of previous blocks, or whatever ends up being defined).
In the above, the words "responsive" and "scientific" have very concrete meanings:
  • responsive: they elicit-verify-implement actual users' needs & requirements
  • scientific: they use the scientific method of proposing-testing-and-accepting-or-rejecting a hypothesis
  • (in particular, they don't have hangups about shifting priorities among projects and proposals when new information becomes available - ie, they have the maturity and the self-awareness and the egolessness to not become pathologically over-attached to proving irrelevant points or pursuing pet projects)
So we could have the following definition of "centralization of development" (à la Paul Sztorc):
The "cost" of anyone adding a new (real, serious) repo must be kept as minimal as possible.
(But of course with the caveat or condition that: the repo still must be "real and serious" - which implies that it will have to overcome a high hurdle in order to be seriously entertained.)
And it bears repeating: As we've seen from the past year of raging debates, the costs and challenges of adding a new (real, serious) repo are largely social and political - and can be very high and exceedingly complex.
But that's probably the way it should be. Because adding a new repo is the first step on the road towards doing a hard fork.
So it is a journey which must not be embarked upon with levity, but with gravity - with all due deliberation and seriousness.
Which is one quite legitimate reason why the people against such a change have dug their heels in so determinedly. And we should actually be totally understanding and even thankful that they have done so.
As long it's a fair fight, done in good faith.
Which I think many of us can feel generous enough to say it indeed has been - for the most part.
Note: I always add the parenthetical "(real, serious)" to the phrase "a new (real, serious) repo" here the same way we add the parenthetical "(valid)" to the phrase: "the longest (valid) chain".
  • In order to add a "valid" block to this chain, there are algorithmic rules - purely mathematical.
  • In order to add a "real, serious" repo to the ecosystem - or to the website bitcoin.org for example, as we recently saw in the strange spectacle of CoinBase diplomatically bowing down to theymos - the rules (and costs) for determining whether a repo is "real and serious" are not purely mathematical but are social-political and economical - and ultimately human, all-too human.
But eventually, a new real serious repo does get added.
Which is what we appear to be seeing now, with this rallying of major talent around Bitcoin Classic.
It is of course probably natural and inevitable that the upholders / usurpers of the First and Only Real Serious Repo might be displeased to see any other new real serious repo(s) arising - and might tend to "unfairly" leverage any advantages they enjoy as "incumbents", in order to maintain their power. This is only human.
But all's fair in love in consensus, so we probably shouldn't hold any of these tendencies against them. =)
"Eppur, si muove."
=>
"But eventually, inexorably, a new 'real, serious' repo does get added."
[Sorry I spelled a word wrong in the OP title: should be "si" not "se"!]
(For some strange delicious reason, I hope luke-jr in particular reads the above lines. =)
So a new real serious repo does finally get set up on Github, and eventually downloaded and compiled to a new real serious binary.
And this binary gets tested on testnet and rolled out on mainnet and - if enough users adopt it (as proven by some easy-to-observe "trigger" - eg 750 of the past 1000 blocks being mined with it) - then this real serious new Bitcoin client gains enough "consensus" to "activate" - and a (hard) chainfork then ensues (which we expect and indeed endeavor to guarantee should only take a few hours at most to resolve itself, as all hashpower should quickly move to the longest valid chain).
Yes this process must involve intensive debate and caution and testing, because it is so very, very dangerous - because it is a "hard fork": initially a hard codefork which takes months of social-political debating to resolve, hopefully guided by the invisible hand of the market, and then a (hard) chainfork which takes only a few hours to resolve (we dearly hope & expect - actually we try to virtually guarantee this by establishing a high enough activation trigger eg "such-and-such percentage of the previous number of blocks must have been mined using the new program).
For analogies to a hard codefork in football and chess, you may find the the same Paul Sztorc article in the section on the dangers of hard forks interesting.
So a "hard fork" is what we must do sometimes. Rarely, and with great deliberation and seriousness.
And the first step involves setting up a new (real, serious) repo.
This is why the actual details on the max-blocksize-increments themselves can be (and are being) left sort of vague for the moment.
There's a certain amount of hand-waving in the air.
Which is ok in this case.
Because this repo isn't about the specifics of any particular "max blocksize algorithm" - yet.
Although we do already have an encouraging statement from Gavin that his new favorite max blocksize proposal is BitPay's Adaptive Block Size Limit - which is very promising, since this proposal is simple, it gives miners autonomy over devs, and it is based on the median (not the average) of previous blocks, and the median is known to be a "more robust" (hence less game-able) statistic.
So, in this sense, Bitcoin Classic is mainly about even being allowed to seriously propose some different "max blocksize" (and probably eventually a few other) algorithms(s) at all in the first place.
So far, in amongst all the hand-waving, here's what we do apparently know:
  • Definitely an initial bump to 2 MB.
  • Then... who knows?
Whatever.
At this point, it's not even the specificity of those specs that matter.
It's just that, for the first time, we have a repo whose devs will let us specify th