BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge - Bitcoin Trading

u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.

https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gvjez/against_the_hard_fork_truthcoin/davpkhy/
I don't think we can survive forever without a HF. What about when/if QC [Quantum Computing] becomes a reality, for example?
~ u/Luke-Jr
So... the only scenario where Luke-Jr can imagine upgrading Bitcoin is in the event of Quantum Computing?!?!?
Luke-Jr has been very damaging and toxic to Bitcoin in several ways:
(1) Luke-Jr's pathological, anti-science insistence on extremely tiny blocks is largely responsible for Circle shutting down Bitcoin trading today.
Circle.com CEO Jeremy Allaire: "bitcoin hasn’t evolved quickly enough to support everyday financial activities." (Circle.com ceases allowing purchase of Bitcoin)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h00u4/circlecom_ceo_jeremy_allaire_bitcoin_hasnt/
Bitcoin Powerhouse [Circle] Will Pull the Plug on Bitcoin
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-powerhouse-will-pull-the-plug-on-bitcoin-1481104800
New Ventures of Old Bitcoin: Circle phasing out buying/selling bitcoin...
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gxy5e/new_ventures_of_old_bitcoin_circle_phasing_out/
(2) Luke-Jr's proposal to do SegWit as an "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork is needlessly overcomplicating Bitcoin's codebase and potentially exposing you to new attack vectors which could _steal your bicoins.
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
SegWit false start attack allows a minority of miners to steal bitcoins from SegWit transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59vent/segwit_false_start_attack_allows_a_minority_of/
Luke-Jr may believe that he genuinely wants to help Bitcoin - but he is only hurting Bitcoin.
As we all know by now, Luke-Jr suffers from numerous physiological and/or psychological pathologies. We cannot continue brush these problems under the rug as being "just his religious freedom".
Luke-Jr's cognitive problems make him incapable of fulling participating in human society - or debating about capacity planning for an emerging global cryptocurrency economy.
In his faith-based, anti-science brain, the only situation where he can imagine hard-forking Bitcoin is in the advent of Quantum Computing (QC) - making him largely responsible for Circle shutting down Bitcoin trading today, due to insufficient capacity on the blockchain - directly attributable to Luke-Jr's well-known efforts to artificially suppress the blocksize and prevent Bitcoin from upgrading via a simple & safe hard-fork.
For all his supposed "piety", Luke-Jr is actually just a blissfully ignorant sociopath and an extremist who is incapable of dealing with life in real-world societies and economies.
He has been very, very harmful to the Bitcoin community, the Bitcoin codebase, and the Bitcoin economy.
Luke-Jr simply does not recognize reality. He lives in his own pathological world where he regularly spouts criminal, anti-social fantasies:
Luke-Jr is a seriously a super crazy person quotes gigathread
https://np.reddit.com/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_a_seriously_a_super_crazy_person_quotes/
Luke-Jr: "The only religion people have a right to practice is Catholicism. Other religions should not exist. Nobody has any right to practice false religions. Martin Luther was a servant of Satan. He ought to have been put to death. Slavery is not immoral. Sodomy should be punishable by death."
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/492ztl/lukejr_the_only_religion_people_have_a_right_to/
Below are more actual quotes illustrating how Luke-Jr's faith-based, anti-science, anti-social brain works:
Now, Circle - a company that the WSJ calls a "Bitcoin powerhouse" - is shutting down Bitcoin trading - and a lot of this is Luke-Jr's fault:
Like the faith-based viewpoints of many harmful US politicians, the faith-based viewpoints of Luke-Jr are delusional, anti-scientific and dangerous to our society and to our economy.
And we are getting yet another very concrete example of this today - where Luke-Jr is largely to blame for causing a major US Bitcoin trading company, Circle, to shut down Bitcoin trading.
Luke is blind to reality
Like any faith-based sociopath, Luke-Jr lacks the mental and emotional faculties to see any of the damage which he is causing.
This is why he keeps on piously mouthing his toxic, blissful ignorance - because he puts his "faith" over science, and fantasy over facts - and himself over the community.
Luke-Jr is also responsible for doing SegWit as a shitty, sucky spaghetti-code soft fork
Luke's "contributions" to Bitcoin have needlessly complicated Bitcoin's codebase - preventing Bitcoin's growth, driving away users and businesses, and dividing the community.
jimmydorry about luke-jr : 'His best work was probably in figuring out how to soft-fork SegWit, and I'm sure that I am forgetting a whole heap of other things he did that were important.'
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49tvwv/jimmydorry_about_lukejr_his_best_work_was/
Why do people continue to listen to this toxic sociopath Luke-Jr?
Why are people letting this toxic sociopath Luke-Jr do capacity planning and upgrade planning for the world's most important cryptocurrency, Bitcoin?
Maybe people contiunue to pay attention to him because he was an early adopter of Bitcoin.
And Blockstream likes him, because he functions as "useful idiot" and attack dog for them: his irrational opposition to hard forks helps keep Blockstream in power.
But, in reality, Luke-Jr has proven again and again that he is merely an extremist and a sociopath. He may help Blockstream - but he hurts Bitcoin.
It is time for the Bitcoin community to recognize that Luke-Jr is dangerous and damaging to Bitcoin.
In a universe without Luke-Jr's toxic influence...
Think about that better world we could be in right now - if we hadn't let our community be damaged by the dangerous and pathological lies and insanity coming from the toxic extremist sociopath Luke-Jr.
Bitcoin will not be able to survive and prosper if we continue to allow the toxic extremist sociopath Luke-Jr to poison our codebase, our community, and our economy.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".

Summary
Details
Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5s6nasurpise_segwit_sf_becomes_more_and_more/
Credit China, the Investor behind Bitfury: "The collaboration with Bitfury is in line with the Group's FinTech strategy .....
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5s0ous/credit_china_the_investor_behind_bitfury_the/
The Bitfury Attack
Strategic full block lunacy: $30 Million injection for the restriction of the Bitcoin Blockchain by 'Credit China' via Bitfury
Since 2 days Bitfury is mining 50% of all segwit blocks. The segwit centralization intensifies. Are AXA (via Blockstream) and Credit China (via BF) trying to prevent Satoshi's 'Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System' and preparing to become an offchain hub, or in other words: The Offchain Hub?
Will it be possible for honest miners - Bitcoin miners - to win the battle against those fiat-rich offchain investors?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5skam9/the_bitfury_attack/
Who is "Credit China"? Why did they just give $30 million dollars to the biggest private miner BitFury? Why is BitFury AGAINST more-profitable market-based blocksizes via a clean upgrade (Unlimited) - and in FAVOR of a centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize via a messy "anyone-can-spend" hack (SegWit)?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5s9d4s/who_is_credit_china_why_did_they_just_give_30/
Who is "Credit China"?
A fiat payment processor and a potential LN Hub. An electronic peer-to-peer cash system is the nightmare of those companies.
A fiat-rich private miner like BitFury might enjoy certain special liberties:
  • A fiat-rich private miner doesn't isn't as "hungry for" the higher price that Unlimited's market-based blocksize and cleaner code would probably bring - and can instead choose the lower price that SegWit's centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and messier code would probably bring.
  • A fiat-rich private miner like BitFury (ie, not a "pool") also doesn't need to worry about the preferences of individual miners pointing their hashpower at different pools.
Centralization is bad for Bitcoin.
BitFury and China Credit and $30 million in fiat is responsible for half the mining support for "the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its 8-year history" ie SegWit.
This is just a further indication of how centralized and fragile support for SegWit really is.
  • BitFury is private, fiat-funded - and part-owned by Blockchain Capital.
  • Blockstream is also private, fiat-funded - and also part-owned by Blockchain Capital.
http://blockchain.capital/portfolio.html
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=%22blockchain+capital%22+bitfury&lui=english&nj=0
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=%22blockchain+capital%22+blockstream&lui=english&nj=0
  • So, Blockchain Capital is part-owner of two of the main forces pushing SegWit's centrally-planned blocksizes and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" kludge:
    • Blockstream: Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded dev team
    • BitFury: Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded mining operation
  • Without the private dev team Blockstream, fiat-funded by Brock Pierce's company Blockstream Capital, there would be no SegWit.
  • Without the private mining operation BitFury, also fiat-funded by Brock Pierce's company Blockstream Capital, 50% of SegWit's miner "support" would evaporate.
Search: segwit "anyone can spend"
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=%22anyone+can+spend%22+segwit&lui=english&nj=0
Search: segwit "network suicide"
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=segwit+network+suicide&lui=english&nj=0
What can we do?
  • We must reject the centrally planned takeover of Bitcoin by private, fiat-funded companies like Blockstream and BitFury - by rejecting their crippled SegWit code (which would force hard-coded centrally-planned blocksize of 1.7MB of everyone for years, and which involves a radical, irresponsible, irreversible hack making all transactions "anyone-can-spend").
  • 25% of mining hashpower is already running better software: Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based blocksizes now and in the future, and avoids the messy hacks and centralization of SegWit.
More information:
Why We Must Increase the Block Size and Why I Support Bitcoin Unlimited
https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-must-increase-the-block-size-and-why-i-support-bitcoin-unlimited-90b114b3ef4a#.l1vlzloc0
Why We Must Oppose Core’s Segwit Soft Fork, Bitcoin Miner Jiang Zhuo’er Tells You Why!
https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/why-we-must-oppose-cores-segwit-soft-fork-bitcoin-miner-jiang-zhuo-er-tells-you-why-28f820d51f98#.5i3ajp5pg
"Segregated Witness is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its eight year history."
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179#.efc0asxoe
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Should Keep Bitcoin Whole

BIP91: The SegWit Activation submitted by NimbleBodhi to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Alleged pedophile Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & "anyone-can-spend kludge"

Note: The following post was removed by the mods on btc. It is being re-posted here on bitcoin_uncensored.
Summary
Details
Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5s6nasurpise_segwit_sf_becomes_more_and_more/
Credit China, the Investor behind Bitfury: "The collaboration with Bitfury is in line with the Group's FinTech strategy .....
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5s0ous/credit_china_the_investor_behind_bitfury_the/
The Bitfury Attack
Strategic full block lunacy: $30 Million injection for the restriction of the Bitcoin Blockchain by 'Credit China' via Bitfury
Since 2 days Bitfury is mining 50% of all segwit blocks. The segwit centralization intensifies. Are AXA (via Blockstream) and Credit China (via BF) trying to prevent Satoshi's 'Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System' and preparing to become an offchain hub, or in other words: The Offchain Hub?
Will it be possible for honest miners - Bitcoin miners - to win the battle against those fiat-rich offchain investors?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5skam9/the_bitfury_attack/
Who is "Credit China"? Why did they just give $30 million dollars to the biggest private miner BitFury? Why is BitFury AGAINST more-profitable market-based blocksizes via a clean upgrade (Unlimited) - and in FAVOR of a centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize via a messy "anyone-can-spend" hack (SegWit)?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5s9d4s/who_is_credit_china_why_did_they_just_give_30/
Who is "Credit China"?
A fiat payment processor and a potential LN Hub. An electronic peer-to-peer cash system is the nightmare of those companies.
A fiat-rich private miner like BitFury might enjoy certain special liberties:
  • A fiat-rich private miner doesn't isn't as "hungry for" the higher price that Unlimited's market-based blocksize and cleaner code would probably bring - and can instead choose the lower price that SegWit's centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and messier code would probably bring.
  • A fiat-rich private miner like BitFury (ie, not a "pool") also doesn't need to worry about the preferences of individual miners pointing their hashpower at different pools.
Centralization is bad for Bitcoin.
BitFury and China Credit and $30 million in fiat is responsible for half the mining support for "the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its 8-year history" ie SegWit.
This is just a further indication of how centralized and fragile support for SegWit really is.
  • BitFury is private, fiat-funded - and part-owned by Blockchain Capital.
  • BitFury is private, fiat-funded - and also part-owned by Blockchain Capital.
http://blockchain.capital/portfolio.html
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=%22blockchain+capital%22+bitfury&lui=english&nj=0
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=%22blockchain+capital%22+blockstream&lui=english&nj=0
  • So, Blockchain Capital is part-owner of two of the main forces pushing SegWit's centrally-planned blocksizes and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" kludge:
    • Blockstream: Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded dev team
    • BitFury: Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded mining operation
  • Without the private dev team Blockstream, fiat-funded by Brock Pierce's company Blockstream Capital, there would be no SegWit.
  • Without the private mining operation BitFury, also fiat-funded by Brock Pierce's company Blockstream Capital, 50% of SegWit's miner "support" would evaporate.
Who is Brock Pierce?
He's that guy who was once briefly elected as director of the Bitcoin Foundation - and then a dozen members resigned because they didn't want Bitcoin to be associated with someone like Brock Pierce, with his shady past involving accusations of sex and drugs with underage boys.
http://vator.tv/news/2014-05-16-bitcoin-foundation-in-turmoil-over-new-director-pierce
The election of Pierce is not sitting well with the Foundation's members, due to accusations in Pierce's past of pedophilia, drug use and fraud. As a result, at least 10 members of the organization have resigned over the decision, according to a report from Reuters on Friday.
At least some of those members have also taken to a Bitcoin Foundation forum to express why they are so unhappy with the direction that the Foundation is taking with this recent decision.
"If the bitcoin foundation is to be taken seriously, they need to immediately remove Brock Pierce from the board and save face," one member wrote. "There are active lawsuits on corporate fraud and child porn. This is NOT the type of associations you want to have for Bitcoin, especially not with the MSM trying to pull every stunt in the book."
https://arstechnica.com/business/2014/05/some-in-bitcoin-group-resign-over-new-board-members-link-to-sex-abuse/
Some in Bitcoin group resign over new board member’s link to sex abuse
Brock Pierce haunted by accusations dating to 1999. He says they're "not true."
The Bitcoin Foundation, a trade group composed of hundreds of individuals and companies involved in the cryptocurrency’s promotion, has been hit with at least a dozen resignations in the wake of the election of a new controversial board member.
Last Friday, American entrepreneur Brock Pierce was elected...
Fifteen years ago, Pierce cofounded a Southern California startup called Digital Entertainment Network. Despite raising tens of millions in venture capital, that company eventually went under. Not long before the company was slated to have its initial public offering in 1999, Pierce and two other cofounders were named in two civil lawsuits alleging sexual abuse of underage boys. Pierce was never charged criminally.
One of those cofounders, Marc Collins-Rector, is now a convicted sex offender, having pleaded guilty to related charges in two states.
Pierce also did not respond to a 2013 civil lawsuit filed against him by UBS Bank for having run up an unpaid credit card bill of over $120,000. UBS won that lawsuit in November 2013 by default.
Search: "brock pierce" pedophile "bitcoin foundation"
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=%22brock+pierce%22+pedophile+%22bitcoin+foundation%22&lui=english&nj=0
Search: segwit "anyone can spend"
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=%22anyone+can+spend%22+segwit&lui=english&nj=0
Search: segwit "network suicide"
https://eu4.ixquick.com/do/search?nosteeraway=1&cat=web&language=english&query=segwit+network+suicide&lui=english&nj=0
What can we do?
  • We must reject the centrally planned takeover of Bitcoin by private, fiat-funded companies like Blockstream and BitFury and shady characters like Brock Pierce - by rejecting their crippled SegWit code (which would force hard-coded centrally-planned blocksize of 1.7MB of everyone for years, and which involves a radical, irresponsible, irreversible hack making all transactions "anyone-can-spend").
  • 25% of mining hashpower is already running better software: Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based blocksizes now and in the future, and avoids the messy hacks and centralization of SegWit.
More information:
Why We Must Increase the Block Size and Why I Support Bitcoin Unlimited
https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-must-increase-the-block-size-and-why-i-support-bitcoin-unlimited-90b114b3ef4a#.l1vlzloc0
Why We Must Oppose Core’s Segwit Soft Fork, Bitcoin Miner Jiang Zhuo’er Tells You Why!
https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/why-we-must-oppose-cores-segwit-soft-fork-bitcoin-miner-jiang-zhuo-er-tells-you-why-28f820d51f98#.5i3ajp5pg
"Segregated Witness is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its eight year history."
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179#.efc0asxoe
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
submitted by ydtm to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

12-02 11:33 - 'Bcash is a kludge. Its a socialist cryptocurrency.' by /u/brewsterf removed from /r/Bitcoin within 10-20min

'''
Bcash is a kludge. Its a socialist cryptocurrency.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: brewsterf
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash is a kludge and people who supported it should be ashamed /r/btc

Bitcoin Cash is a kludge and people who supported it should be ashamed /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Should Keep Bitcoin Whole

BIP91: The SegWit Activation submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Should Keep Bitcoin Whole

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)
At one end of the fence there is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 148, a user activated soft fork originally proposed by the pseudonymous developer "Shaolinfry." On the other, there's SegWit2x, an agreement forged between a significant number of Bitcoin companies and miners.
SegWit would be activated if the vast majority of miners are ready for it.
If BIP148 is not supported by a majority of miners, Bitcoin's blockchain could split in two.
SegWit2x, is the scaling agreement reached by a numer of Bitcoin companies and over 80 percent of miners, drafted just before the Consensus 2017 conference.
Like the original BIP141 proposal, SegWit2x was to be activated by miners through hash power.
If a majority of miners run BIP91, the longest valid Bitcoin chain will consist of SegWit-signaling blocks only, and all regular BIP141 SegWit nodes will activate the protocol upgrade.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Bitcoin#1 miner#2 activate#3 block#4 activation#5
Post found in /Bitcoin, /BitcoinAll and /BTCNews.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Should Keep Bitcoin Whole

BIP91: The SegWit Activation submitted by BTCNews to BTCNews [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash is a kludge thats giving crypto a bad name. People who supported it should be ashamed. /r/Bitcoincash

Bitcoin Cash is a kludge thats giving crypto a bad name. People who supported it should be ashamed. /Bitcoincash submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LU /r/btc

u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge". /r/btc

Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Sticky: For newbs or those in the dark, read this to get redpilled about why Bitcoin SV (BSV) is the real Bitcoin. Follow the links and sources to become informed and enlightened.

Someone recently asked me in PM to redpill them about why BSV is the real Bitcoin, and here is my response below. We could make this an informative sticky post, so if I forgot anything or people want to contribute please comment below and we can edit it as we go (1/13/19):
Ok, well Core obviously can't be bitcoin, it has segwit which has a whole host of problems, along with a strangled 1MB cap on block size. The fees got outrageous and they basically destroyed adoption and set back Bitcoin adoption by years.
So we forked off with BCH to preserve the original vision of Satoshi. I was on the front lines as one of the first pushing the idea of a split to preserve the ledger if segwit ever activated. Segwit is horrible because it breaks the chain of signatures and the definition of Bitcoin in the whitepaper as explained here by Peter Rizun. It has a lot of other problems too introduced by the kludge code as well, like the "anyonecanspend" vulnerability, as well as enhancing other problems that already exist with P2SH. It causes problems with validationless mining. It is a nightmare. Some are even saying there is a critical bug in segwit that will be revealed this year, including a mysterious warning post by Satoshi on twitter. Core wanted to shove segwit down our throats, and said we could never have big blocks, so we went off on BCH to follow Satoshi's vision.
Unfortunately during the split, the ABC group somehow thought they are the boss dictators of a decentralized project. We endured things for a while, and were able to stave off some of their radical change proposals. But now they have crossed the line with radical changes that break and damage the system. The whole split with ABC and BSV happened when Amaury said he would take actions to irritate many, by prioritizing "pre-consensus". Basically they are moving away from POW and Satoshi's design of Nakamoto Consensus to a new design called "avalanche", which is more similar to POS. They even added centralized checkpoints and 10 block reorg protection during the split, meaning the ABC chain is completely centralized. Deadalnix the lead ABC dev is even planning to add segwit malfix to BCH, when the entire split with Core happened because of segwit. The guy even refers to himself as a shitlord dictator. They said that they own the ticker and they don't even care about miner vote, or the white paper, or Nakamoto Consensus.
BSV had 80-90% of the hash power leading to the fork. Here is a post showing they had over 85% hash rate supporting SV. Then Roger and others rented hash to 51% attack the chain. Here is Roger on Twitter bragging that he is moving his pool hash for the 51% attack. They are using censorship and propaganda as well. For example I was a huge contributor to /btc starting Tipping Tuesday giving thousands of dollars worth of BCH to newbs and promoting their sub, and I was the #5 biggest tipper, and the most frequent tipper of all time according to bitcoin.com, and I was banned because I support SV, even when they complain about /bitcoin censorship and claim they allow free speech, they are liars and hypocrites. There are even lawsuits against them over the 51% attack.
ABC is not Bitcoin at all, they also refuse to raise the blocksize limit the same as Core and they are stuck at 32MB. They said 22MB was the maximum possible, but now BSV proved them wrong by mining a 103MB block, a world record. Update now we do 128MB blocks routinely. If we want Bitcoin to be sound money for the world we have to build giant capacity now. We need to solve the "Fidelity Problem" as described by Jeff Garzik. The block reward is running out and we must sustain ourselves on fees over time or the system fails. We need to show the world the huge capacity we can handle, so giant companies and institutions, and central banks will build their tokens on our blockchain. This is how we spread Bitcoin to the world. Fiat tokens issued by central banks on BSV is one of the stepping stones to worldwide adoption.
The ABC community wants to change to a POS model, or have a dictator, or have social consensus to decide governance. Some of them even say it is ok to increase the 21 million cap using social consensus. I don't believe such governance mechanisms will work, they lead to oligarchy and corruption, and tyranny. We couldn't have such governance or democratic voting decide the properties of gold, and the properties of Bitcoin should not be changed easily either. If we want sound money we need a stable protocol and not a protocol that forks and changes things every 6 months like ABC does. They also have other problems in their roadmap like merklix trees, which introduce more vulnerabilities over time. Nobody wants to build on a chain that is constantly changing, and nobody can trust it as sound money. Only POW governance will work, as nChain's paper explains other systems degrade to oligarchy. This was Satoshi's design.
Bitcoin is a very clever economic and game theoretic incentive system, and these young naive developers are trying to mess with a system that they do not understand. Most people do not understand these things, so the market is having trouble discerning the true Bitcoin. Over time as we scale, it will be clear. We are lucky that we have been able to preserve Satoshi's vision and design with BitcoinSV, it is the one and true Bitcoin. At the end of the day they can steal the ticker and use propaganda and dirty tricks, but it is not so easy to stop the Honey Badger in the long term. We will go on to spread sound money and economic freedom worldwide. Come join us /bitcoincashSV
submitted by cryptorebel to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

With the skyrocketing BTC transaction fees averaging around $50 a transaction trackers should accept alternate crpytos such as ETH, Monero, BCH

The BTC transaction fees have gotten ridiculous and unsustainable for donators to donate to trackers. To send a €5 donation to BTN it would cost me €5 + $50 in transaction fees. I would rather donate that wasted $50 to BTN instead of a broken BTC ecosystem and I think other trackers should implement accepting alternate cryptos that are actually viable for smaller donations.
BTC core has become a toxic ecosystem of increasing transaction fees, week long unconfined transactions, broken kludge fixes and overall shitty politics (including censorship). Please consider accepting viable cryptos such as BCH, ETH, Monero.
http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/12/22/bitcoins-average-transaction-fee-surpasses-50-network-issues-remain/
submitted by xerohour to trackers [link] [comments]

Luke-Jr: "Due to the block size increases over the summer [of 2015], I can no longer run a full node 24/7"

EDIT - Now linking directly to Luke-Jr's comment about his slow internet - not to his OP:
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ydwg2/warning_abnormally_high_number_of_blocks/cycqmvx
No wonder luke-jr is in favor of a 500-kilobyte block size limit!
His internet is so slow in the Backwater Republic of Florida, he can't even handle that!
Is the following math right?
To run a full node, you need to be able to upload 500 kilobytes to 8 peers, every ten minutes, right?
So to run a full (non-mining) node, you'd need to be able to upload:
So Luke-Jr has only around 50 kilobits per second of internet upload speed?!?
EDIT: To clarify, Luke-Jr is talking about actual blocksizes - which have been creeping up towards the current (temporary) max blocksize cap of 1 MB (introduced as a temporary workaround a few years ago to to avoid certain types of spamming, and now threatening to clog up the network, where most users - unlike Luke-Jr - actually already do live in places where they get sufficient bandwidth to handle blocks much, much larger than 1 MB).
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

/r/HailCorporate condemns /r/Bitcoin for censorship, abuse of moderator privileges, and selective enforcement of their rules to suit the agenda of a for-profit company.

The Bitcoin subreddit has been overtaken by bad actors. A cursory look through the user history of the moderators will help to show this.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere; therefore
We condemn the moderators of bitcoin until the censorship ends or the subreddit is deleted completely.
Documented proof of the censorship but only a really teeny tiny amount of it
Why we shouldn't accept this censorship
What can be done to save Bitcoin from the attacks of a hostile and well financed cabal
The current code contributors are not irreplaceable
The whole story is very complicated and rife with mistruths depending on who you hear it from. The take away however is that censorship is rampant on bitcoin, open discussion is not allowed, and discussion or proof of the censorship is grounds for being censored.
The head of the bitcoin subreddit is suspected of being a US government employee, which means all his personal information is known to at least one major nation state and probably more, and he is as compromised as anyone can be.
The US's CIA has known about Bitcoin since 2011 and has likely worked with well established methods to infiltrate the 'Core' group of developers and maintainers. To say again, trust no one, but use critical thinking.
Although this Divide and Conquer tactic is almost textbook when coupled with the CIA's simple sabotage manual (PDF WARNING) we can still help people to think for themselves by questioning everything totheir sources and trusting no one.
For people in bitcoin that think themselves intelligent, it is sad to see them so blindly follow opinions with no evidence and denounce others for their views without ever looking at the opposing evidence.
Learn more about what bitcoin was designed and intended to be by reading the explanatory whitepaper or reading what Satoshi had to say. Support forking into an alt-coin to those that share a future vision of Bitcoin which is different than the design. And remember the common computer science phrase Keep It Simple Stupid or KISS is worldwide regarded as better than overly complex and complicated 'kludges'.
reddits that do not support censorship include:
submitted by Pravusmentis to HailCorporate [link] [comments]

SegWit only allows 170% of current transactions for 400% the bandwidth. Terrible waste of space, bad engineering

Through a clever trick - exporting part of the transaction data into witness data "block" which can be up to 4MB, SegWit makes it possible for Bitcoin to store and process up to 1,7x more transactions per unit of time than today.
But the extra data still needs to be transferred and still needs storage. So for 400% of bandwidth you only get 170% increase in network throughput.
This actually is crippling on-chain scaling forever, because now you can spam the network with bloated transactions almost 250% (235% = 400% / 170%) more effectively.
SegWit introduces hundereds lines of code just to solve non-existent problem of malleability.
SegWit is a probably the most terrible engineering solution ever, a dirty kludge, a nasty hack - especially when comparing to this simple one-liner:
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE=32000000 
Which gives you 3200% of network throughput increase for 3200% more bandwidth, which is almost 2,5x more efficient than SegWit.
EDIT:
Correcting the terminology here:
When I say "throughput" I actually mean "number of transactions per second", and by "bandwidth" then I mean "number of bytes transferred using internet connection".
submitted by ShadowOfHarbringer to btc [link] [comments]

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Summary
Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it.
I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater".
SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while.
But then we all learned that:
And we also got much better solutions: such as market-based blocksize with Bitcoin Unlimited - way better than SegWit's arbitrary, random centrally-planned, too-little-too-late 1.7MB "max blocksize".
This is why more and more people are rejecting SegWit - and instead installing Bitcoin Unlimited.
In my case, as I gradually learned about the disastrous consequences which SegWit-as-a-soft-fork-hack would have, my intial single OP in December 2015 expressing outspoken support for SegWit soon turned to an avalanche of outspoken opposition to SegWit.
Details
Core / Blockstream lost my support on SegWit - and it's all their fault.
How did Core / Blockstream turn me from an outspoken SegWit supporter to an outspoken SegWit opponent?
It was simple: They made the totally unnecessary (and dangerous) decision to program SegWit as a messy and dangerous soft-fork which would:
  • create a massive new threat vector by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
  • force yet-another random / arbitrary / centrally planned "max blocksize" on everyone (previously 1 MB, now 1.7MB - still pathetically small and hard-coded!).
Meanwhile, new, independent dev teams which are smaller and much better than the corrupt, fiat-financed Core / Blockstream are offering simpler and safer solutions which are much better than SegWit:
  • For blocksize governance, we now have market-based blocksize based on emergent consensus, provided by Bitcoin Unlimited.
  • For malleability and quadratic hashing time (plus a future-proof, tag-based language similar to JSON or XML supporting much cleaner upgrades long-term), we now have Flexible Transactions (FlexTrans).
This is why We Reject SegWit because "SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history".
My rapid evolution on SegWit - as I discovered its dangers (and as we got much better alternatives, like Bitcoin Unlimited + FlexTrans):
Initially, I was one of the most outspoken supporters of SegWit - raving about it in the following OP which I posted (on Monday, December 7, 2015) immediately after seeing a presentation about it on YouTube by Pieter Wuille at one of the early Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3vt1ov/pieter_wuilles_segregated_witness_and_fraud/
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits).
So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community.
However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
  • trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
  • trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
  • trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year.
So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community.
We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork.
But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork.
The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear:
Bitcoin users are not stupid.
Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork.
And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote.
And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately.
We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack.
If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit).
Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code.
Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago.
But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences.
Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k6tke/the_tragedy_of/
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
  • Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
  • SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
  • But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
  • Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
  • This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=segwit+anyone+can+spend&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5r9cu7/the_real_question_is_how_fast_do_bugs_get_fixed/
Why are more and more people (including me!) rejecting SegWit?
(1) SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible change ever proposed for Bitcoin:
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbug3/the_scaling_argument_was_ridiculous_at_first_and/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5a7husegwitasasoftfork_is_a_hack/
(2) Better solutions than SegWit are now available (Bitcoin Unlimited, FlexTrans):
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/574g5l/viabtc_why_i_support_bu_we_should_give_the/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u1r2d/bitcoins_specification_eg_excess_blocksize_eb/
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zjnk/the_blockstreamsegwitln_fork_will_be_worth_less/
(3) Very few miners actually support SegWit. In fact, over half of SegWit signaling comes from just two fiat-funded miners associated with Core / Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC:
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
(4) Hard forks are simpler and safer than soft forks. Hard forks preserve your "right to vote" - so Core / Blockstream is afraid of hard forks a/k/a "full node refendums" - because they know their code would be rejected:
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5f4zaa/anything_controversial_is_the_perfect_time_for_a/
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41c8n5/as_core_blockstream_collapses_and_classic_gains/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59hcvblockstream_is_just_another_shitty_startup_a/
(5) Core / Blockstream's latest propaganda "talking point" proclaims that "SegWit is a blocksize increase". But we don't want "a" random, arbitrary centrally planned blocksize increase (to a tiny 1.7MB) - we want _market-based blocksizes - now and into the future:_
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fjh6l/the_bitcoin_community_is_talking_why_isnt/
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/593voi/the_majority_of_the_community_sentiment_be_it/
(6) Core / Blockstream want to radically change Bitcoin to centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize, and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" semantics. The market wants to go to the moon - with Bitcoin's original security model, and Bitcoin's original market-based (miner-decided) blocksize.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57brcb/bitcoin_unlimited_is_the_real_bitcoin_in_line/
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdhzh/the_number_of_blocks_being_mined_by_bitcoin/
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v10zw/i_have_just_been_banned_for_from_rbitcoin_fo
Flipping the Script: It is Core who is proposing a change to Bitcoin, and BU/Classic that is maintaining the status quo.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v36jy/flipping_the_script_it_is_core_who_is_proposing_a/
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/
TL;DR:
You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream?
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Here is an informative PM with many links and sources I sent to someone who asked to be redpilled about why BSV is the real Bitcoin.

Ok, well Core obviously can't be bitcoin, it has segwit which has a whole host of problems, along with a strangled 1MB cap on block size. The fees got outrageous and they basically destroyed adoption and set back Bitcoin adoption by years.
So we forked off with BCH to preserve the original vision of Satoshi. I was on the front lines as one of the first pushing the idea of a split to preserve the ledger if segwit ever activated. Segwit is horrible because it breaks the chain of signatures and the definition of Bitcoin in the whitepaper as explained here by Peter Rizun. It has a lot of other problems too introduced by the kludge code as well, like the "anyonecanspend" vulnerability, as well as enhancing other problems that already exist with P2SH. It causes problems with validationless mining. It is a nightmare. Some are even saying there is a critical bug in segwit that will be revealed this year, including a mysterious warning post by Satoshi on twitter. Core wanted to shove segwit down our throats, and said we could never have big blocks, so we went off on BCH to follow Satoshi's vision.
Unfortunately during the split, the ABC group somehow thought they are the boss dictators of a decentralized project. We endured things for a while, and were able to stave off some of their radical change proposals. But now they have crossed the line with radical changes that break and damage the system. The whole split with ABC and BSV happened when Amaury said he would take actions to irritate many, by prioritizing "pre-consensus". Basically they are moving away from POW and Satoshi's design of Nakamoto Consensus to a new design called "avalanche", which is more similar to POS. They even added centralized checkpoints and 10 block reorg protection during the split, meaning the ABC chain is completely centralized. Deadalnix the lead ABC dev is even planning to add segwit malfix to BCH, when the entire split with Core happened because of segwit. The guy even refers to himself as a shitlord dictator. They said that they own the ticker and they don't even care about miner vote, or the white paper, or Nakamoto Consensus.
BSV had 80-90% of the hash power leading to the fork. Here is a post showing they had over 85% hash rate supporting SV. Then Roger and others rented hash to 51% attack the chain. Here is Roger on Twitter bragging that he is moving his pool hash for the 51% attack. They are using censorship and propaganda as well. For example I was a huge contributor to /btc starting Tipping Tuesday giving thousands of dollars worth of BCH to newbs and promoting their sub, and I was the #5 biggest tipper, and the most frequent tipper of all time according to bitcoin.com, and I was banned because I support SV, even when they complain about /bitcoin censorship and claim they allow free speech, they are liars and hypocrites. There are even lawsuits against them over the 51% attack.
ABC is not Bitcoin at all, they also refuse to raise the blocksize limit the same as Core and they are stuck at 32MB. They said 22MB was the maximum possible, but now BSV proved them wrong by mining a 103MB block, a world record. If we want Bitcoin to be sound money for the world we have to build giant capacity now. We need to solve the "Fidelity Problem" as described by Jeff Garzik. The block reward is running out and we must sustain ourselves on fees over time or the system fails. We need to show the world the huge capacity we can handle, so giant companies and institutions, and central banks will build their tokens on our blockchain. This is how we spread Bitcoin to the world. Fiat tokens issued by central banks on BSV is one of the stepping stones to worldwide adoption.
The ABC community wants to change to a POS model, or have a dictator, or have social consensus to decide governance. Some of them even say it is ok to increase the 21 million cap using social consensus. I don't believe such governance mechanisms will work, they lead to oligarchy and corruption, and tyranny. We couldn't have such governance or democratic voting decide the properties of gold, and the properties of Bitcoin should not be changed easily either. If we want sound money we need a stable protocol and not a protocol that forks and changes things every 6 months like ABC does. They also have other problems in their roadmap like merklix trees, which introduce more vulnerabilities over time. Nobody wants to build on a chain that is constantly changing, and nobody can trust it as sound money. Only POW governance will work, as nChain's paper explains other systems degrade to oligarchy. This was Satoshi's design.
Bitcoin is a very clever economic and game theoretic incentive system, and these young naive developers are trying to mess with a system that they do not understand. Most people do not understand these things, so the market is having trouble discerning the true Bitcoin. Over time as we scale, it will be clear. We are lucky that we have been able to preserve Satoshi's vision and design with BitcoinSV, it is the one and true Bitcoin. At the end of the day they can steal the ticker and use propaganda and dirty tricks, but it is not so easy to stop the Honey Badger in the long term. We will go on to spread sound money and economic freedom worldwide. Come join us /bitcoincashSV
submitted by cryptorebel to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

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

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

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

Summary (TL;DR)

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

Details

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

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

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

The only acceptable "compromise" is SegWit NEVER, bigger blocks NOW. SegWit-as-a-soft-fork involves an "anyone-can-spend" hack - which would give Core/Blockstream/AXA a MONOPOLY on Bitcoin development FOREVER. The goal of SegWit is NOT to help Bitcoin. It is to HURT Bitcoin and HELP Blockstream/AXA.

TL;DR: Adding a poison pill like SegWit to Bitcoin would not be a "compromise" - it would be suicide, because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt, incompetent, toxic dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA, who are only interested in staying in power and helping themselves at all costs - even if they end up hurting Bitcoin.
Most of this post will probably not be new information for many people.
It is being provided mainly as a reminder, to counteract the constant flood of lies and propaganda coming from Core/Blocsktream/AXA in their attempt to force this unwanted SegWit poison pill into Bitcoin - in particular, their latest desperate lie: that there could somehow be some kind of "compromise" involving SegWit.
But adding a poison pill / trojan horse like SegWit to our code would not be some kind of "compromise". It would be simply be suicide.
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is an existential threat to Bitcoin development - because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt / incompetent centralized dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA who are directly to blame for the current mess of Bitcoin's crippled, clogged network and drastically falling market cap.
Furthermore, markets don't even do "compromise". They do "winner-takes-all". Any coin adopting SegWit is going to lose, simply because SegWit is such shitty code:
"Compromise is not part of Honey Badger's vocabulary. Such notions are alien to Bitcoin, as it is a creature of the market with no central levers to compromise over. Bitcoin unhampered by hardcoding a 1MB cap is free to optimize itself perfectly to defeat all competition." ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y7vsi/compromise_is_not_part_of_honey_badgers/
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill / trojan horse for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember: The real goals of Core/Blocsktream/AXA with SegWit are to:
  • permanently supress Bitcoin's price / adoption / network capacity / market cap / growth - via SegWit's too-little, too-late centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize;
  • permanently control Bitcoin development - via SegWit's deadly "anyone-can-spend" hack.
In order to see this, all you need to do is judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their actions (and the results of their actions - and by their shitty code):
Purely coincidental... ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Do not judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their words.
As we have seen, their words have been just an endless stream of lies and propaganda involving changing explanations and shifting goalposts and insane nonsense - including this latest outrageous concept of SegWit as some kind of "compromise" which some people may be "falling for":
Latest Segwit Trickery involves prominent support for "SW Now 2MB Later" which will lead to only half of the deal being honored. Barry Silbert front and center. Of course.
~ u/SouperNerd
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btm5u/latest_segwit_trickery_involves_prominent_support/
The people we are dealing with are the WORST type of manipulators and liars.
There is absolutely NO reason why they should not deliver a 2 MB block size at the same time as SegWit.
This is like a dealer saying "hey gimme that $200 now, I just gotta run home and get your weed, I promise I'll be right back".
~ u/BitAlien
Barry Silbert's "proposal" is just another bait and switch
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btl26/barry_silberts_proposal_is_just_another_bait_and/
Right, so the wording is:
I agree to immediately support the activation of Segregated Witness and commit to effectuate a block size increase to 2MB within 12 months
[Based] on [their] previous performance [in the Hong Kong agreement - which they already broke], they're going to say, "Segregated Witness was a block size increase, to a total of 4MB, so we have delivered our side of the compromise."
~ u/edmundedgar
Barry is an investor in Blockstream. What else needs to be said?
~ u/coinlock
Nothing involving SegWit is a "compromise".
SegWit would basically hijack Bitcoin development forever - giving a permanent monopoly to the centralized, corrupt dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA.
  • SegWit would impose a centrally planned blocksize of 1.7MB right now - too little and too late.
  • Segwit would permanently "cement" Core/Blockstream/AXA as the only people controlling Bitcoin development - forever.
If you are sick and tired of these attempts by Core/Blockstream/AXA to sabotage Bitcoin - then the last thing you should support is SegWit in any way, shape or form - even as some kind of so-called "compromise".
This is because SegWit is not primarily a "malleability fix" or a "capacity increase".
SegWit is a poison pill / trojan horse which would put the idiots and traitors at Core/Blockstream/AXA permanently and exclusively in control of Bitcoin development - forever and ever.
Here are the real problems with SegWit (which Core/Blockstream/AXA is not telling you about):
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
"So, Core wants us to trust miners not to steal Segwit's anyone-can-spends, but will not let them have a say on block size. Weird."~Cornell U Professor and bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/60ac4q/so_core_wants_us_to_trust_miners_not_to_steal/
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
Here is a list (on medium.com) of 13 articles that explain why SegWit would be bad for Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/646kmv/here_is_a_list_on_mediumcom_of_13_articles_that/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly (self.btc)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
As Benjamin Frankline once said: "Given a choice between Liberty (with a few Bugs), and Slavery (with no Bugs), a Free People will choose Liberty every time." Bitcoin Unlimited is liberty: market-based blocksizes. SegWit is slavery: centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize & "anyone-can-spend" transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zievg/as_benjamin_frankline_once_said_given_a_choice/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA is terrified of hard forks:
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
If some bozo dev team proposed what Core/Blockstream is proposing (Let's deploy a malleability fix as a "soft" fork that dangerously overcomplicates the code and breaks non-upgraded nodes so it's de facto HARD! Let's freeze capacity at 1 MB during a capacity crisis!), they'd be ridiculed and ignored
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5944j6/if_some_bozo_dev_team_proposed_what/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA has been trying to choke the Bitcoin network and suppress Bitcoin's price & adoption. (Hint: Blockstream is controlled by central bankers who hate Bitcoin - because they will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds as a major world currency).
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
Double standards: The other sub would go ballistic if Unlimited was funded by AXA. But they are just fine when AXA funds BS-core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62ykv1/double_standards_the_other_sub_would_go_ballistic/
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
Bilderberg Group -> AXA Strategic Ventures -> funds Blockstream -> Blockstream Core Devs. (The chairman of Bilderberg is Henri de Castries. The CEO of AXA Henri de Castries.)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/576ac9/bilderberg_group_axa_strategic_ventures_funds/
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62htv0/why_is_blockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_unullc_trying/
Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/689y1e/coreaxablockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_ceo_adam_back/
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xjkof/im_angry_about_axa_scraping_some_counterfeit/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
Just as a reminder: The main funder of Blockstream is Henri de Castries, chairman of French insurance company AXA, and chairman of the Bilderberg Group!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uw6cc/just_as_a_reminder_the_main_funder_of_blockstream/
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jgkxv/bitcoin_can_go_to_10000_usd_with_4_mb_blocks_so/
And finally, here's one easy way that Bitcoin can massively succeed without SegWit - and even without the need for any other major or controversial changes to the code:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

#189 Jimmy Song: A Fork in the Road for Bitcoin? We Remastered Crysis Ourselves Royal Kludge rk61 60% keyboard review Royal Kludge RK61 bluetooth Wired Dual Mode 60% RGB Mechanical Gaming Keyboard Unboxing Review High Kill Solo Squads LIVE

BIP91: SegWit-aktiveringen "Kludge" som borde bibehålla bitcoin hel Juni 2020. Bitcoin Fork/ChainSplit #3 - BIP91 on Verge of Lock In, is #UASF Avoided? (Juni 2020). Bitcoins långvariga skalningsdebatt tycks vara på väg mot ett klimax nyligen, med två förslag som får betydande dragkraft. I ena änden av staketet finns Bitcoin Improvement Bitcoin's long-lasting scaling debate appeared to be heading toward a climax lately, with two proposals gaining significant traction. At one end of. BIP91: The SegWit Activation "Kludge" That Bitcoin’s long-lasting scaling debate appeared to be heading toward a climax lately, with two proposals gaining significant traction. At one end of the fence there is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 148 (BIP148), a user activated soft fork (UASF) originally proposed by the pseudonymous developer “shaolinfry.” On the other, there’s SegWit2x, an agreement forged between a significant number Recently, my full node (Bitcoin Core 0.14.2) displays this for both HD and non-HD wallets: Warning: Unknown block versions being mined! It's possible unknown rules are in effect What does this What’s better than the current Bitcoin testnet? A testnet that is highly predictable. This is the goal of the Bitcoin signet, a new sort of testnet proposed by Karl-Johan Alm, for which the one-word description would be “stable.” What Is a Testnet? Bitcoin developers need a place to test things out.

[index] [10525] [6872] [17577] [20075] [8962] [20199] [6927] [746] [25419] [14596]

#189 Jimmy Song: A Fork in the Road for Bitcoin?

Thanks all for watching!! Make sure to like and subscribe 1.5k subs is a 12hr stream and 2k subs maybe 24hr stream but atleast a face reveal! Specs: Mouse: Logitech g402 Keyboard: RK61 Royal ... A Litecoin segwitre torteno atallasakor lathattuk, hogy mikent manipulaljak az arakat a kinai banyaszok (ld. aprilis 27-i videom itt: https://www.youtube.com... El Royal kludge es quizá el teclado 60% barato con la mejor calidad-precio del mercado. En el vídeo hago un repaso de todas sus características y os cuento mi experiencia después de casi un ... Royal Kludge RK61 Mechanical Keyboard : https://bit.ly/3fLapuD 10 % off coupon code : BGTOMEX (for all keyboard and mouse without distcount) Banggood app : h... Support the show, consider donating: BTC: 1CD83r9EzFinDNWwmRW4ssgCbhsM5bxXwg (https://epicenter.tv/tipbtc) ETH: 0x8cdb49ca5103Ce06717C4daBBFD4857183f50935 (h...

Flag Counter