XT.com market: Bitcoin reported at $9542.78 : u/XT-Exchange
21% attack possible against BIP100? : Bitcoin - reddit
The Great Bitcoin Scaling Debate — A Timeline | by Daniel
Bitcoin Cash Node Reveals Upgrade Plans for May and
Ummm, remember those "Expert" Bitcoin Price Predictions for 2019 ..... ohhhhh dear .....
Lots of cryptocurrency "experts" put whatever "reputation" and "credibility" they had on the line with Bitcoin predictions in 2019, and and came up wayyyyyy short. Eggs on Face ... by the cartoon. Any credibility thay had, completely destroyed, exposing them for the coin schills that they truly are. Luckily for these lying, delusional morons, Butters has a very short selective memory, and he will still believe everything they say again and again in the future, no matter how wrong or corrupt they are. Without further ado, I give you the "Expert" Bitcoin Price Predictions for 2019:
Question: Why isn't anyone holding the above "experts" accountable for their bogus, bullshit predictions ??? In addition, we have some gems from various Redditors, and here are some of the stand-outs:
04-28 13:15 - 'China Launches Blockchain-based Service Work (BSN) to Rule the World 中國推出區塊鏈，圖征服全球? By Chapman Chen, HKBNews' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/HKBNews removed from /r/Bitcoin within 17-27min
3 days ago, China launched Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN), which, coupled with the digital Yuan, a pilot version of which was launched in mid-April, will accomplish what Huawei has failed to do -- to infiltrate, monitor and control the entire world in all human activities, e.g. finance, technology, health, insurance, entertainment, social media, voting. The only antidote is worldwide adoption of truly decentralized and uncensored blockchains and Bitcoin.
BSN Covers 6 Continents!
On April 25th, the Chinese authorities announced the launching of Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN), aka ChinaChain. It is a cross-cloud, cross-portal, cross-underlying-framework, global infrastructure network jointly initiated and set up by State Information Center (SIC), state-owned firms China UnionPay, China Mobile and Red Date for deploying and operating various kinds of blockchain applications (1). IOST is the first overseas blockchain network to be taken on board of BSN (2). Now there are already 128 city nodes across the country, and 8 BSN portals including 7 respectively located in California, Johannesburg, Paris, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, and San Paulo. It is going to be applied in all trades, e.g., technology, finance, banking, health, insurance, social media, entertainment, issuing of passports, land registries, tax collection, law, voting.
BSN is even more Invasive than Huawei
Let's face it:- we are headed for a global digital economy. As neither the USA not Europe has yet established such an enormous blockchain infrastructure consortium, China will enjoy the first mover's advantage in the space. While Huawei has been rejected by America and many Western countries for security reasons, BSN is now an even more powerful plan to infiltrate and control the entire world in practically all domains.
According to Bloomberg (April 15), China's Central Bank has just launched a pilot digital Yuan in 4 cities, using blockchain, the technology behind Bitcoin. For instance, in Xiang-cheng, Suzhou, all employees will have to download a state-controlled digital wallet by May and all wages will be paid in digital Yuan from then on. Every penny spent by you will be scrutinized and censored by the CCP. And a spyware may be implanted in the digital Yuan wallet and/or ledger so that anybody, not just Chinese but also Westerners, who transact in digital RMB, will be affected and subject to surveillance by the CCP. Now, with BSN, this will not be limited to transactions in digital RMB. Instead, it will be extended to all sectors, all fields, all human activities all over the world.
Rejection of Libra + Blockchain Advocacy + Covid19
On October 24, Facebook's proposal to launch the cryptocurrency Libra was rejected by the U.S. Congress. On October 25, Chairman Xi Jinping announced that China will go all-in on blockchain. On November 17, 2019, a China-man from Hubei, carrying the covid19 virus, began to spread it across the globe, according to South China Morning Post. Bitboy Crypto on April 28, 2020 wonders whether all these are just coincidental, or they constitute a conspiracy on the part of China to beat the free world financially, technologically, and biologically (3).
What is Blockchain?
Blockchain, the technology underlying Bitcoin, is an electronic ledger distributed across and managed by peer-to-peer networks. It can exist without a centralized authority or server managing it, and its data quality can be maintained by database replication and computational trust.
The First Blockchain
The first work on a cryptographically secured chain of blocks was described in 1991 by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta. The first blockchain was conceptualized by a person (or group of people) known as Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 to serve as the public transaction ledger of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin.
A Mutated Blockchain
The information stored in a normal blockchain is immutable. But the Chinese government favors a unique blockchain called EOS, wherein all transactions and governance decisions are processed and approved by only 21 main nodes known as supernodes, rather than numerous nodes distributed all over the world. Twelve of the EOS supernodes are in China. This makes it easier for the CCP to control blockchains, since the penalty of noncompliance with Chinese regulations is high for China-based supernodes.
The Only Antidote
"Tomorrow is now" (Eleanor Roosevelt 1962) . The decentralized, permissionless, and disinflationary Bitcoin is now the only thing in the world that can counteract the digital RMB, and urgent, extensive adoption of uncensored blockchain networks is the only solution to BSN hegemony.
Fb link: [[link]7
Web link: [[link]8
Terry Wang, IOST CTO, delivered a speech on blockchain to state leaders of China at the Great Hall of the People in December 2019. ([[link]10 )
Disclaimer: This article is neither an advertisement nor professional financial advice. ''' China Launches Blockchain-based Service Work (BSN) to Rule the World 中國推出區塊鏈，圖征服全球? By Chapman Chen, HKBNews Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: HKBNews 1: ww**facebook.com/h*ngkon*bil*ngu*lnews*p**t*/94*376245**0140*__xts__%5B0%**=68.*RAL*elagqu*qRl*biXCPZjOvd*FcQV**1Z27*O*IFt*3W*0**SC*ax*m1nQj*FKE_HdlLlKHn*VvRb*jo5qUsEw2xwmQ*H*3NPFBQ9**n***Hl*x*8**dX*TNlPEp*lHv*6k*-bt*0a**H***Ko*Zd20*9**j*uChT**L2AEH**B_Rl0*Rr*gG6F*b**z*b**x*g*5TmN*1IuIli*hTLOD**1hf*-Hae*MroDpv*DTGSsP_U**Z*-yMkK*EIoy5o**6*CW*NtI**vZkF3X*Ie*LN6DhhP*pb*DbHuMW*gcP4sIwYtzM*gMs*q*IweC3*oXL*7*ohCm0yfGQ*IM&**p*__tn**=KH-R 2: w*w.hkbn*ws.*et/po**/chi***launch*s-*lockchai**b***d-se*vic*-work-bsn-**-rule-the-wor*d-*E4%B*%AD%E5%9C*8B%E6%*E**8%E*%8**BA*E5%8D**0**5%A1%*A%**%8F%88%E*%BC%**%E5%9*%96%E5%BE%*1%E*%9**8D%E****%A*%*7%*0%83***%*C%*Fby-chapman-chen 3: w**.c***nne*s.com/zh-ha*t/**ti*les/12962**27608*htm 4: medi*m**o*/io*t/ios*-**o-*er*y-wa*g-prese**s-to-s*at**lead*rs-m*yo*s*and-ceos-in-ch*nas**rea*-hal*-of-*he-p*opl*-5*e885e*1*91 5: www.youtube**om/**tch?*=1*m**Q*LMqc 6: pr***ew.*ed**i**e3frgp871k*41.*pg?wid*h=**7*amp;format=pj*g&auto=webp*a*p;s=*2e3***df*c*d9***129c5*3fb46fd0f2046***f 7: w**.f**eb*ok*com*h**gkong*ilingualnew*/p*sts/*4937*2455001*0*\_\**n\_\_=-R**^1 8: **w.hkbnews.net*post/*hina-*au*ch**-****kc*a*n**ased-service**o*k-b**-t*-ru*e-the*world-%E*%B8*AD%E5%9C%8B%*6%8*%A*%E5%87*B*%E5%8*%8**E5%A1%8A*E9%8**88%E**BC%8C%E5%**%96**5**E*8*%**%9*%8D%E5%85%A8*E***0%83%EF%BC%*Fby-*hapma*-*hen]^^2 9: www.chai*news.com/zh-hant/*rt*c**s**29*2**2*60*.htm]^** 10: mediu*.co**io*t/io**-cto-te**y*w*ng-pre*e*ts-to-st*te-leader*-may*rs*and-**os-*n-ch*nas-*r*a**hall**f-***-people-5f*885ea1691*^^* 11: ww***o*tube.com/**t*h?v=18m*hQ*LMq*]^^5 Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
One secretive person (Theymos) owns /bitcoin and holds the opinion that the Bitcoin protocol should not be easily changed, and certainly not via a contentious hardfork. Their reasoning is that if you can change something via contentious hardfork, you can change anything, even the 21 million limit. Therefor they spread their believe (FUD) that such a hardfork would split the network. And anyone who disagrees and tries to push a hardfork is by their definition an attacker (or a fool). That is how they justify censorship & attacks against anything or anyone who tries to hardfork the network (so Bitcoin XT, then Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited). But (as I see it) the main reason a blocksize increase via hardfork is contentious is because it is contentious. There aren't actually many people who want a 1Mb limit. There is just a whole bunch of people who fear a contentious/dangerous Hardfork. You could say that Bitcoin has been paralysed with fear. Big blockers (and most people on /btc) are a bit more pragmatic. And most believe a simple majority must be in charge. Because the alternative is that a random minority can veto anything and thereby change Bitcoin for the worse. And a non-change like, not upgrading the limit, is definitely a huge change(!). If the intended use of the limit changes, then that should need consensus (and a proper design). Basically we want the free-market to be in charge, because that will lead to the most profitable Bitcoin, and by extension the most ideal blocksizes (which clearly needs to be balanced). What we now have is FUD and over-engineers being in control. Which is ironic because /bitcoin likes to call /btc FUD-sters. When it is clearly the other way around. The sad thing is that this sub desperately wants to believe in conspiracy theories, that Blockstream is behind all this. Something I can't disprove, but there is also not enough proof for this theory that you should take it seriously. The motivation of Core supporters/small blockers already makes total sense, and is very consistent. There is no need for alternative motives on either side. Edit: Btw, you can change anything (even the 21 million limit) via soft-fork. So the obsession with softforks over at /bitcoin makes no sense. The only advantage it still has is that only Blockstream/Core is willing to put the time/effort to make these complicated soft-forks, big thanks to VC funding. Which effectively puts Core in charge, and effectively makes Bitcoin a technocracy. Yet ironically you see Core dev's continue to say they are not in control. TL;DR: Minority veto's, softforks forever, censorship and attacks clearly put Core in control of Bitcoin's future.
Bitcoin is slow because the block size was left at 1MB - 2MB with Witness Data on the SEGWIT network - after throwing the entire "team" developer of GitHub and being occupied by developers of what is now known as Blockstream. This size has been maintained and keeps referring to two issues: Mining in China and the decentralization of the nodes or transaction validators that you point out in the article. Mining in China occupies a good part of the pie that miners distribute - in turn these are the ones that confirm the transactions and undermine the blocks - since 2011 and these Chinese farms are behind something that in the West call "The Great Firewall "that prevents a stable connection and slows down the propagation of the block, its mining and confirmation of the transaction over 3 minutes   causing a large part of the mining coming from China and therefore the power of 'Hash' decreased drastically affecting the security of Bitcoin; The less Hash the greater the possibility of being attacked by the Bitcoin network through a 51% attack that could cause double spending - although this gives rise to many debates since the 51% attack on an already "mature" network like Bitcoin requires a Considerable expenditure on mining equipment to control 51% of the mining power and receiving the block reward and the commissions for confirmed transfer on each block would make it less likely that said miner or mining group would like to make a double expense upon receiving sufficient economic compensation. So only a malicious agent with the intentions of destroying the network and assuming the total losses on the investment of equipment would be willing to carry out such operation. Possibilities exist but these are reduced by being the miner compensated for their activity. In the same references to Chinese mining farms but in another more economical field; Bitcoin has 21 million that are obtained through mining and commissions on transfers. These 21 million are achieved over time and from there it becomes a deflationary element as there is no possibility of printing more coins. The question of the Bitcoin block costly and the influence of Chinese mining goes through the Bitcoin subsidy or, currently called as, block reward: When a miner puts a block in the chain he receives the Bitcoin reward that is "inside" "of that block and which is currently encrypted in 12.5. Every 210000 blocks the reward is reduced by half so in less than a year (312 days from today ) it will be reduced to 6.25 so the miners will see their subsidy fall in half unless Bitcoin's price per coin increases considerably or the mining farms begin to close or reduce mining equipment thus decreasing the power of the network's Hash. If Bitcoin reduces by half every 210000 blocks the subsidy per block to miners will come a time when they can only live and maintain their equipment for transaction fees and in a Bitcoin network with 7 transactions per second and a commission that tends to Increase the higher the number of movements in it makes it unfeasible for miners to continue in said 1MB network and above all that people want to use this payment method that is expensive and slow - more even than gold paper - Because remember that Bitcoin born as Peer 2 peer cash, not gold-. Therefore, if in time the subsidy or reward is going to be 0 or unable to cover the mining equipment expense, it is necessary to find a solution if the developers do not want to touch the block size. And this goes through three issues already raised in BIPs and about the community: RPF (Replace By Fee), Lightning Network and Increase in the number of Bitcoin since the demand for Bitcoin does not rise because it offers a quality service but for security and above all for the manipulation of Tether (USDT) and the large exchange houses: - The RBF consists in the substitution of a transaction without confirmations for another that would replace it with a higher commission eliminating the previous one of the mempool - the limbo of the transactions to be confirmed in Bitcoin -. Although this system seems effective, it does not eliminate the long-term problem of continuing to maintain the reduced block, but rather removes the problem of financing miners, but does not eliminate it and, above all, kills the operation of Bitcoin transactions by not eliminating the increase in commissions that would distance the user from its use. In addition to more easily allowing double spending  . - Lightning Network is a side-chain or second layer, that is, a software development not implemented in the Bitcoin network itself and therefore is not an element of the block chain so this should already be repudiated since being a External and non-auditable element such as Bitcoin gives rise to "blanks" and therefore lack of existence and possibility of auditing accounts  and even the loss of money or cancellation of the transaction  . It also faces the problem of routing since in a network in constant change with the openings and closures of payment channels it is unfeasible to establish a total and rapid diffusion to the nodes of LN - other than those of Bitcoin - so it comes into play Another new element of this network is the watchtowers in charge of ensuring compliance in open channels and over the entire LN network of payments. Obviously it requires an additional cost to hire this service and it is not yet implemented  and taking into account the pace at which Lightning Network is developed, it is doubtful that it will become available . In short, to use properly - which is not successful - LN you need a node valued at $ 300 , a watchtower, have a channel open 24/7 and with sufficient funds to carry out transactions    . - The increase in the Bitcoin offer was raised fleetingly by developer Peter Todd   and will become an open debate in a few years when the mining block reward is low and the price of Bitcoin cannot be sustained only with uncontrolled printing of Tether and the manipulation on the price of the currency   next to the collusion of the exchange houses headed by BitFinex  and personalities of the world 'crypto'  - if he survives long enough to see that moment since they are already behind Bitfinex for money laundering . When that moment arrives I am sure that a BIP - Bitcoin Improvement Proposal - will be launched by Blockstream or directly notified of the measure destroying the essence of Bitcoin and the TRUE DECENTRALIZATION: THE PROTOCOL. This brings us to the second reason for the slowness of Bitcoin. The correct and true decentralization goes through the code and the team of developers and maintainers, not any other. The protocol must be engraved in stone  and that the action of the miners distribute and decentralize the network and they maintain the nodes and the transactions in a completely capitalist economic relationship. Investing in machines and communication improves access, speed and spread of transactions and blocks and makes miners true competitors as well as facilitating the transmission of money and all kinds of transactions . The decentralization of the nodes was the other great reason to prevent the increase of the block and therefore the speed in the transaction. It is based on a false premise to base the decentralization of Bitcoin - which is nowhere on the whitepaper - on the raspberry nodes. The dispersion of the transaction and all the stages of the transaction and the blocks depend on the miner and his team, as well as the search for excellence in communications to avoid orphan blocks - which are stipulated in the Nakamoto consensus and are part of Bitcoin and not they throw no problem in the transactions only in the resolution of the reward of the block that affects the miners and should seek greater efficiency - and reorganizations. The audit on the Bitcoin network can be perfectly performed without there being a Bitcoin node in each house, in fact it would cause the same routing problems that occur / will occur in the LN network. Decentralization should not go through nodes but through developers and to a lesser extent by miners. If a protocol is continually being altered by developers they have the power of the network and it must be in constant struggle by the miners through the commission on transactions. Due to these two factors, the BIP0101 proposed by the developers that Satoshi left in charge  and that originated the creation of Bitcoin Unlimited was rejected, later it was attacked due to its recent creation through DDoS attacks in a statement of intentions of the network Blockstream bitcoin   remaining as a residual element. These two reasons are the cause of the drowning suffered by the Bitcoin network - including many other elements that were eliminated and that corresponded to the initial code completely changing the nature and destiny of Bitcoin that are not relevant and I will not enumerate -, Any other reason is propaganda by those who want to keep Bitcoin drowned in order to enrich themselves with mining sub-subsidies and second-layer software like LN. Bitcoin has a structure similar to gold and can collect certain attributes of it but its destination in efficient and fast transmission as effective - among other transactions. Bitcoin was designed to professionalize miners and create a new industry around them, so mining centers will become datacenters  and they will replicate all transaction logs and even this professionalization will eventually lead to specialization in other types of transactions born new industries around you that will support the nodes according to specialization - Data, asset transfers, money, property rights, etc ... - Bitcoin scales to infinity if they leave the protocol FREE enough to do so. P.D: Core, since the departure of Hearn and Andersen, they know perfectly well what they are doing: The worst breed from the Cyberpunk movement has been combined with the worst breed of the current synarchy; The ends always touch.  https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ygo96/blocksize_consensus_census/cye0bmt/  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivgxcEOyWNs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h36m20s  https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/  https://petertodd.org/2016/are-wallets-ready-for-rbf  https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4905430.0 https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-funds || https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/03/13/lightning-network-has-many-routing-problems-says-lead-dev-at-lightning-labs  https://diar.co/volume-2-issue-25/  https://blockonomi.com/watchtowers-bitcoin-lightning-network/  https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712  https://store.casa/lightning-node/  https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/81906/to-create-a-channel-on-the-lightning-network-do-you-have-to-execute-an-actual-t  https://blog.muun.com/the-inbound-capacity-problem-in-the-lightning-network/  https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e  https://dashnews.org/peter-todd-argues-for-bitcoin-inflation-to-support-security/  https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1092260891788103680  https://medium.com/datadriveninvestotether-usd-is-used-to-manipulate-bitcoin-prices-94714e65ee31  https://twitter.com/CryptoJetHammestatus/1149131155469455364  https://www.bitrates.com/news/p/crypto-collusion-the-web-of-secrets-at-the-core-of-the-crypto-market  https://archive.is/lk1lH  https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=8W00ssb7x5ZOaj8HKFdbfQ==  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611  https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0101.mediawiki  https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3yewit/psa_if_youre_running_an_xt_node_in_stealth_mode/  https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3yebzi/coinbase_down/ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306"
An incomplete history of the Bitcoin Cash's origin and the Minimum Viable Fork project
A common meme is that Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and Craig Wright are the ones responsible for the creation of Bitcoin Cash. This is untrue. Those are figureheads who played a role in popularizing or (for Bitmain, allegedly) funding later development, but they played almost no part until Bitcoin Cash development was long since underway. The Bitmain UAHF contingency plan blog post was made on 2017-06-14. This was the first event in Bitcoin Cash's history that reached a wide audience, but it came 15 months after work on what later became Bitcoin Cash began. The public decision to do a minority hard fork happened 2016-07-31, and was spearheaded by singularity87 and ftrader. ftrader did most of the initial development, which he had started back in March 2016. Even back then, the plan to fork before Segwit's activation was clear:
Bitmain was merely joining their effort in 2017, not starting it. Bitcoin Cash evolved out of the Minimum Viable Fork project that ftradeFreetrader started in March 2016, and which was discussed in /btcfork and /btc. Freetrader blogged about it quite a bit. If you read through his posts, you can see his initial prototype was built on Bitcoin Classic. In Oct 2016, a MVF version based on Bitcoin Core was made. Development on MVF stalled during the latter half of 2016 when it seemed like Bitcoin Unlimited's emergent consensus proposal was likely to gain adoption, but heated up again in early 2017 when BU lost support after a few remote crash 0-day exploits were found and used against BU on March 15 and again in April. Freetrader restarted his MVF work on Bitcoin Unlimited in April. The first mention of Bitcoin ABC is from May 7, 2017. The ABC project was started by deadalnix, but with mostly the same goal as ftrader's work using Core as the base instead of BU or Classic. At that time, ABC was just Core 0.14 minus RBF and Segwit; it didn't yet have any blocksize changes. Deadalnix reached out to Freetrader and asked him if he wanted to help, which Freetrader did. Freetrader made the first prototype of Bitcoin ABC with a blocksize limit other than 1 MB on or before May 21, 2017, while still working in parallel on the Bitcoin Unlimited version of the MVF. Ftrader and deadalnix continued to work on Bitcoin ABC for a couple months before Bitmain even mentioned their support for the contingency plan, and their contingency plan was basically the same as what ftrader and singularity87 had proposed back in June 2016 (but with more refinements and details worked out) -- perform a minority hard fork from BTC before Segwit activates to increase the blocksize limit, and do so in a way that ensures as clean a split as possible. Bitcoin ABC was announced to the public on July 1st, 2017, by ftrader and by deadalnix, about 2-3 months after deadalnix and ftrader began working on it, and 2 weeks after Bitmain announced its intent to support the UAHF. On the date that BCH forked, there were four separate compatible full-node clients:
Bitcoin ABC, developed mostly by Amaury Sechet/deadalnix and freetrader;
Bitcoin Unlimited, developed by the BU team (Andrew Stone/thezerg, Peter Tchipper, Andrea Suisani/sickpig, Peter Rizun, freetrader, and a few others, and funded by anonymous donors in 2016 for their Emergent Consensus proposal);
Bitcoin XT, developed initially by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and later by Tom Harding/dgenr8 and dagurval
Of those developers, the only ones who received money while they were working on these clients were possibly deadalnix (alleged but unconfirmed to be paid by Bitmain), and Gavin (MIT Digital Currency Initiative). Everybody else was a volunteer. At the time, BU's funds only paid for conferences, travel expenses, and a $20,000 bug bounty; BU didn't start paying its developers until after the BCH hard fork. A lot of Bitcoin Cash's early support came from Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. ViaBTC's exchange was the first to offer BCH trading pairs, and ViaBTC's pool was the first public pool to support BCH. I've also heard that Haipo Yang was the one who coined the name Bitcoin Cash -- can anyone confirm or deny this? ViaBTC played a significant role in BCH's deployment, far more than Roger Ver or Craig Wright, and had a comparable amount of influence to Bitmain. However, this was not obvious on the outside, because Haipo Yang is the kind of person who quietly builds things that work, instead of just being a prominent talking head like Craig Wright and Roger Ver are. Roger himself actually didn't fully support Bitcoin Cash until after the fork. Initially, he had his hopes up for Segwit2x, as did I. His name was conspicuously missing in an Aug 1, 2017 article about who supports Bitcoin Cash. It was only after Segwit2x failed on Nov 8, 2017 that he started to support BCH. Craig Wright on the other hand did praise the Bitcoin Cash initiative early on, probably largely because he hated Segwit for some reason. But he didn't do anything to help create BCH; he only spoke in favor of it. (I really wish he hadn't. His involvement in BCH fostered a lot of false beliefs among Bitcoin Cash's userbase, like the belief that selfish mining doesn't exist. We were only able to get rid of his crazed followers when BSV forked off. I'm very grateful that happened. But I digress.) Most people didn't take him seriously, but a modest minority bought his narrative hard. He was a pretty minor player at the time, and remained so until 2018. These are the people who created Bitcoin Cash. It's easy to place all the credit/blame on the most vocal figureheads, but the marketing department does not create the product; they just sell it. If you weren't around during the product's development, it's hard to know who actually built the thing and who was just a bandwagon joiner. CSW and Roger just hopped on the bandwagon. Jihan Wu/Bitmain and Haipo Yang/ViaBTC joined the crew of the bandwagon and contributed substantially to its development and survival, but by the time they had joined the bandwagon was already in motion. The real instigators were the community members like ftrader, deadalnix, singularity87, the BU crew, the Electron Cash crew (Calin Culianu, kyuupichan, Jonald Fyookball, etc.) and the many others who contributed in various ways that I haven't documented. For those of you who played a role or know of someone else who did but whom I didn't mention in this post, please make a comment below so we can all hear about it.
Transcript of the community Q&A with Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Bitcoin SV development team. We talk about the path to big blocks, new opcodes, selfish mining, malleability, and why November will lead to a divergence in consensus rules. (Cont in comments)
We've gone through the painstaking process of transcribing the linked interview with Steve Shadders and Daniell Connolly of the Bitcoin SV team. There is an amazing amount of information in this interview that we feel is important for businesses and miners to hear, so we believe it was important to get this is a written form. To avoid any bias, the transcript is taken almost word for word from the video, with just a few changes made for easier reading. If you see any corrections that need to be made, please let us know. Each question is in bold, and each question and response is timestamped accordingly. You can follow along with the video here: https://youtu.be/tPImTXFb_U8
Connor: 02:19.68,0:02:45.10 Alright so thank You Daniel and Steve for joining us. We're joined by Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly from nChain and also the lead developers of the Satoshi’s Vision client. So Daniel and Steve do you guys just want to introduce yourselves before we kind of get started here - who are you guys and how did you get started? Steve: 0,0:02:38.83,0:03:30.61
So I'm Steve Shadders and at nChain I am the director of solutions in engineering and specifically for Bitcoin SV I am the technical director of the project which means that I'm a bit less hands-on than Daniel but I handle a lot of the liaison with the miners - that's the conditional project.
Hi I’m Daniel I’m the lead developer for Bitcoin SV. As the team's grown that means that I do less actual coding myself but more organizing the team and organizing what we’re working on.
Connor 03:23.07,0:04:15.98 Great so we took some questions - we asked on Reddit to have people come and post their questions. We tried to take as many of those as we could and eliminate some of the duplicates, so we're gonna kind of go through each question one by one. We added some questions of our own in and we'll try and get through most of these if we can. So I think we just wanted to start out and ask, you know, Bitcoin Cash is a little bit over a year old now. Bitcoin itself is ten years old but in the past a little over a year now what has the process been like for you guys working with the multiple development teams and, you know, why is it important that the Satoshi’s vision client exists today? Steve: 0:04:17.66,0:06:03.46
I mean yes well we’ve been in touch with the developer teams for quite some time - I think a bi-weekly meeting of Bitcoin Cash developers across all implementations started around November last year. I myself joined those in January or February of this year and Daniel a few months later. So we communicate with all of those teams and I think, you know, it's not been without its challenges. It's well known that there's a lot of disagreements around it, but some what I do look forward to in the near future is a day when the consensus issues themselves are all rather settled, and if we get to that point then there's not going to be much reason for the different developer teams to disagree on stuff. They might disagree on non-consensus related stuff but that's not the end of the world because, you know, Bitcoin Unlimited is free to go and implement whatever they want in the back end of a Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin SV is free to do whatever they want in the backend, and if they interoperate on a non-consensus level great. If they don't not such a big problem there will obviously be bridges between the two, so, yeah I think going forward the complications of having so many personalities with wildly different ideas are going to get less and less.
Cory: 0:06:00.59,0:06:19.59 I guess moving forward now another question about the testnet - a lot of people on Reddit have been asking what the testing process for Bitcoin SV has been like, and if you guys plan on releasing any of those results from the testing? Daniel: 0:06:19.59,0:07:55.55
Sure yeah so our release will be concentrated on the stability, right, with the first release of Bitcoin SV and that involved doing a large amount of additional testing particularly not so much at the unit test level but at the more system test so setting up test networks, performing tests, and making sure that the software behaved as we expected, right. Confirming the changes we made, making sure that there aren’t any other side effects. Because of, you know, it was quite a rush to release the first version so we've got our test results documented, but not in a way that we can really release them. We're thinking about doing that but we’re not there yet.
Just to tidy that up - we've spent a lot of our time developing really robust test processes and the reporting is something that we can read on our internal systems easily, but we need to tidy that up to give it out for public release. The priority for us was making sure that the software was safe to use. We've established a test framework that involves a progression of code changes through multiple test environments - I think it's five different test environments before it gets the QA stamp of approval - and as for the question about the testnet, yeah, we've got four of them. We've got Testnet One and Testnet Two. A slight