Scalability Debate Continues As Bitcoin XT Proposal Stalls

Bitcoin Plus other related topics

Bitcoin
[link]

Merged: Coinbase removed from Bitcoin.org for running experimental XT nodes

Merged: Coinbase removed from Bitcoin.org for running experimental XT nodes submitted by PotatoBadger to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

Coinbase chose to run XT over bitcoin Unlimited last year, then it put Classic nodes into production just a few weeks later...

...again choosing something other than BU. Now BU has been out for about a year and is gaining some hash rate but Coinbase and CEO Brian Armstrong have made no indication that they are running BU nodes at this and no comment has been made. Why do you suppose that is?
submitted by Hernzzzz to btc [link] [comments]

Brian Armstrong says Coinbase will run Umlimited Nodes: "we are running a variety of node types in production including bitcoin core, XT, a custom node we wrote which works at our scale, and we will probably add others like BU"

Brian Armstrong says Coinbase will run Umlimited Nodes: submitted by freddiyt to bitcoin_unlimited [link] [comments]

Coinbase chose to run XT over bitcoin Unlimited last year, then it put Classic nodes into production just a few weeks later... /r/btc

Coinbase chose to run XT over bitcoin Unlimited last year, then it put Classic nodes into production just a few weeks later... /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

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

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

Cobra’s progression

I have enjoyed watching Cobra slowly change his public position on several things. It's never too late to make up for ones mistakes in my eyes!
Still, maybe this is a fun opportunity to revisit some of the highlights of Cobra's tenure over Bitcoin.org.
15 June 2015: Bitcoin.org introduces an official ‘position on hard-forks,’ which meant it would not promote XT.
Bitcoin.org will not promote software or services that will leave the previous consensus because of a contentious hard fork attempt.
26 December 2015: Cobra makes a Github issue to remove Coinbase from the “choose your wallet” page on Bitcoin.org to punish them for running a Bitcoin XT node in addition to their Bitcoin Core node.
01 July 2016: Cobra posts on Github that he wants to update the Bitcoin whitepaper because it confuses people.
03 July 2017: An issue is open on the Bitcoin.org Github account titled Removal of BTC.com wallet?
Cobra replies that he doesn’t mind if they are removed from the website as punishment because of their association with Jihan Wu and therefore, big block efforts.
They’re associated with that monster Jihan Wu, so I don’t mind if they get removed because of this, they’re terrible people. I definitely feel like a line has been crossed here.
28 September 2017: Cobra opens a Github issue for Bitcoin.org labeled Add Segwit2x Safety Alert. The alert ostensibly warns users of hostile companies, but the list includes most of the oldest, most successful Bitcoin companies, and the real goal seems to be to scare or punish these companies for their stance on Segwit 2x.
08 November 2017: Theymos creates a Github issue titled Policy to fight against “miners control Bitcoin” narrative.
Hilariously, Cobra replies in agreement and blames this misconception on the white paper itself.
11 August 2018: Cobra creates a Github issue to discuss relisting companies that were removed from Bitcoin.org for supporting the 2mb hard fork block size increase. His reasoning is that the delisting worked to stop the increase and that these companies are unlikely to try it again.
You will be missed Cobra! If you are interested in appointing a member of Bitcoin.org who will be more open to competing ideas, I invite you to DM me. I am very familiar with the Jekyll static site generator you're currently using.
submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

B(TC)itcoin is slow || My small and humble contribution

https://panzadura.github.io/B(TC)itcoin-is-slow/itcoin-is-slow/)

This is my small and (very) humble contribution: *English is not my first language so I apologize for spelling mistakes and inaccuracies.

B(TC)itcoin is slow

Bitcoin is slow because the block size was left at 1MB - 2MB with Witness Data on the SEGWIT network - after throwing the entire "team" developer of GitHub and being occupied by developers of what is now known as Blockstream.
This size has been maintained and keeps referring to two issues: Mining in China and the decentralization of the nodes or transaction validators that you point out in the article.

Mining in China occupies a good part of the pie that miners distribute - in turn these are the ones that confirm the transactions and undermine the blocks - since 2011 and these Chinese farms are behind something that in the West call "The Great Firewall "that prevents a stable connection and slows down the propagation of the block, its mining and confirmation of the transaction over 3 minutes [1] [2] causing a large part of the mining coming from China and therefore the power of 'Hash' decreased drastically affecting the security of Bitcoin; The less Hash the greater the possibility of being attacked by the Bitcoin network through a 51% attack that could cause double spending - although this gives rise to many debates since the 51% attack on an already "mature" network like Bitcoin requires a Considerable expenditure on mining equipment to control 51% of the mining power and receiving the block reward and the commissions for confirmed transfer on each block would make it less likely that said miner or mining group would like to make a double expense upon receiving sufficient economic compensation. So only a malicious agent with the intentions of destroying the network and assuming the total losses on the investment of equipment would be willing to carry out such operation. Possibilities exist but these are reduced by being the miner compensated for their activity.

In the same references to Chinese mining farms but in another more economical field; Bitcoin has 21 million that are obtained through mining and commissions on transfers. These 21 million are achieved over time and from there it becomes a deflationary element as there is no possibility of printing more coins. The question of the Bitcoin block costly and the influence of Chinese mining goes through the Bitcoin subsidy or, currently called as, block reward: When a miner puts a block in the chain he receives the Bitcoin reward that is "inside" "of that block and which is currently encrypted in 12.5. Every 210000 blocks the reward is reduced by half so in less than a year (312 days from today [3]) it will be reduced to 6.25 so the miners will see their subsidy fall in half unless Bitcoin's price per coin increases considerably or the mining farms begin to close or reduce mining equipment thus decreasing the power of the network's Hash. If Bitcoin reduces by half every 210000 blocks the subsidy per block to miners will come a time when they can only live and maintain their equipment for transaction fees and in a Bitcoin network with 7 transactions per second and a commission that tends to Increase the higher the number of movements in it makes it unfeasible for miners to continue in said 1MB network and above all that people want to use this payment method that is expensive and slow - more even than gold paper - Because remember that Bitcoin born as Peer 2 peer cash, not gold-.
Therefore, if in time the subsidy or reward is going to be 0 or unable to cover the mining equipment expense, it is necessary to find a solution if the developers do not want to touch the block size. And this goes through three issues already raised in BIPs and about the community: RPF (Replace By Fee), Lightning Network and Increase in the number of Bitcoin since the demand for Bitcoin does not rise because it offers a quality service but for security and above all for the manipulation of Tether (USDT) and the large exchange houses:

- The RBF consists in the substitution of a transaction without confirmations for another that would replace it with a higher commission eliminating the previous one of the mempool - the limbo of the transactions to be confirmed in Bitcoin -. Although this system seems effective, it does not eliminate the long-term problem of continuing to maintain the reduced block, but rather removes the problem of financing miners, but does not eliminate it and, above all, kills the operation of Bitcoin transactions by not eliminating the increase in commissions that would distance the user from its use. In addition to more easily allowing double spending [4] [5].

- Lightning Network is a side-chain or second layer, that is, a software development not implemented in the Bitcoin network itself and therefore is not an element of the block chain so this should already be repudiated since being a External and non-auditable element such as Bitcoin gives rise to "blanks" and therefore lack of existence and possibility of auditing accounts [6] and even the loss of money or cancellation of the transaction [7] [8]. It also faces the problem of routing since in a network in constant change with the openings and closures of payment channels it is unfeasible to establish a total and rapid diffusion to the nodes of LN - other than those of Bitcoin - so it comes into play Another new element of this network is the watchtowers in charge of ensuring compliance in open channels and over the entire LN network of payments. Obviously it requires an additional cost to hire this service and it is not yet implemented [9] and taking into account the pace at which Lightning Network is developed, it is doubtful that it will become available [10]. In short, to use properly - which is not successful - LN you need a node valued at $ 300 [11], a watchtower, have a channel open 24/7 and with sufficient funds to carry out transactions [12] [13] [14] .

- The increase in the Bitcoin offer was raised fleetingly by developer Peter Todd [15] [16] and will become an open debate in a few years when the mining block reward is low and the price of Bitcoin cannot be sustained only with uncontrolled printing of Tether and the manipulation on the price of the currency [17] [18] next to the collusion of the exchange houses headed by BitFinex [19] and personalities of the world 'crypto' [20] - if he survives long enough to see that moment since they are already behind Bitfinex for money laundering [21]. When that moment arrives I am sure that a BIP - Bitcoin Improvement Proposal - will be launched by Blockstream or directly notified of the measure destroying the essence of Bitcoin and the TRUE DECENTRALIZATION: THE PROTOCOL.

This brings us to the second reason for the slowness of Bitcoin. The correct and true decentralization goes through the code and the team of developers and maintainers, not any other. The protocol must be engraved in stone [22] and that the action of the miners distribute and decentralize the network and they maintain the nodes and the transactions in a completely capitalist economic relationship. Investing in machines and communication improves access, speed and spread of transactions and blocks and makes miners true competitors as well as facilitating the transmission of money and all kinds of transactions [22].
The decentralization of the nodes was the other great reason to prevent the increase of the block and therefore the speed in the transaction. It is based on a false premise to base the decentralization of Bitcoin - which is nowhere on the whitepaper - on the raspberry nodes. The dispersion of the transaction and all the stages of the transaction and the blocks depend on the miner and his team, as well as the search for excellence in communications to avoid orphan blocks - which are stipulated in the Nakamoto consensus and are part of Bitcoin and not they throw no problem in the transactions only in the resolution of the reward of the block that affects the miners and should seek greater efficiency - and reorganizations. The audit on the Bitcoin network can be perfectly performed without there being a Bitcoin node in each house, in fact it would cause the same routing problems that occur / will occur in the LN network.
Decentralization should not go through nodes but through developers and to a lesser extent by miners. If a protocol is continually being altered by developers they have the power of the network and it must be in constant struggle by the miners through the commission on transactions.

Due to these two factors, the BIP0101 proposed by the developers that Satoshi left in charge [23] and that originated the creation of Bitcoin Unlimited was rejected, later it was attacked due to its recent creation through DDoS attacks in a statement of intentions of the network Blockstream bitcoin [24] [25] remaining as a residual element.

These two reasons are the cause of the drowning suffered by the Bitcoin network - including many other elements that were eliminated and that corresponded to the initial code completely changing the nature and destiny of Bitcoin that are not relevant and I will not enumerate -, Any other reason is propaganda by those who want to keep Bitcoin drowned in order to enrich themselves with mining sub-subsidies and second-layer software like LN. Bitcoin has a structure similar to gold and can collect certain attributes of it but its destination in efficient and fast transmission as effective - among other transactions.

Bitcoin was designed to professionalize miners and create a new industry around them, so mining centers will become datacenters [26] and they will replicate all transaction logs and even this professionalization will eventually lead to specialization in other types of transactions born new industries around you that will support the nodes according to specialization - Data, asset transfers, money, property rights, etc ... -

Bitcoin scales to infinity if they leave the protocol FREE enough to do so.

P.D: Core, since the departure of Hearn and Andersen, they know perfectly well what they are doing: The worst breed from the Cyberpunk movement has been combined with the worst breed of the current synarchy; The ends always touch.

[1] https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ygo96/blocksize_consensus_census/cye0bmt/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivgxcEOyWNs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h36m20s
[3] https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/
[4] https://petertodd.org/2016/are-wallets-ready-for-rbf
[5] https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
[6] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4905430.0
[7]https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-funds || https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/03/13/lightning-network-has-many-routing-problems-says-lead-dev-at-lightning-labs
[8] https://diar.co/volume-2-issue-25/
[9] https://blockonomi.com/watchtowers-bitcoin-lightning-network/
[10] https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712
[11] https://store.casa/lightning-node/
[12] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/81906/to-create-a-channel-on-the-lightning-network-do-you-have-to-execute-an-actual-t
[13] https://blog.muun.com/the-inbound-capacity-problem-in-the-lightning-network/
[14] https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e
[15] https://dashnews.org/peter-todd-argues-for-bitcoin-inflation-to-support-security/
[16] https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1092260891788103680
[17] https://medium.com/datadriveninvestotether-usd-is-used-to-manipulate-bitcoin-prices-94714e65ee31
[18] https://twitter.com/CryptoJetHammestatus/1149131155469455364
[19] https://www.bitrates.com/news/p/crypto-collusion-the-web-of-secrets-at-the-core-of-the-crypto-market
[20] https://archive.is/lk1lH
[21] https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=8W00ssb7x5ZOaj8HKFdbfQ==
[22] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611
[23] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0101.mediawiki
[24] https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3yewit/psa_if_youre_running_an_xt_node_in_stealth_mode/
[25] https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3yebzi/coinbase_down/
[26]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306"
submitted by Knockout_SS to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

A Guide To The BCH Fork on November 15th - Be Informed!

BCH November 15th Forking Guide
 
Intro
As you may have heard, on 15th November 2018 the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain will fork into at least two separate chains. We felt it our duty to provide information to the community on the situation that we hope will offer some clarity on this rather complex situation.
 
What Is A Fork?
A fork occurs when at least one group of miners decide to follow a separate set of rules from the current consensus protocol. Due to the way bitcoin is designed, these miners will then operate on a separate network from the current network. This was in fact how Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash was created from the original Bitcoin. Both changed the consensus rules in different ways that made them incompatible.
To make the current situation slightly more complex, there are to be two sets of miners that are changing the protocol rules away from the current protocol. It is not expected that the currently operating consensus rules will be in operation by any significant set of miners after November 15th. This means that after November 15th there will be two new sets of competing protocol rules. For simplicity these will be described as the BitcoinABC ruleset and the BitcoinSV ruleset (although other implementations such as Bitcoin Unlimited, bcash, bchd, BitcoinXT and bitprim all also have the ABC consensus ruleset).
This is quite a unique fork situation as one side (BitcoinSV) has indicated that they will be willing to attack their competition (BitcoinABC) using reorgs and doublespends to destabilise and reduce confidence in it.
 
BitcoinABC Fork Details
The main new features in the BitcoinABC that make it incompatible with the current protocol are CTOR and DSV.
To summarise:
CTOR (Canonical Transaction Ordering) is a technology that allows blocks to be transmitted in a much more efficient way. This means that as blocks become larger as the network gains more adoption, the hardware and bandwidth requirements on nodes is decreased. This reduces centralisation pressures and allows us to scale the network with fewer adverse effects. You can read more about CTOR in this excellent ARTICLE by u/markblundeberg.
DSV (CheckDataSigVerify) is a technology that allows oracles directly on the Bitcoin blockchain. This means that the transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain can be dependent on actions that happen in the real world. For example you could bet on the weather tomorrow, or if a specific candidate wins an election, all directly on the blockchain. You can read more about DSV at this excellent ARTICLE by u/mengerian.
 
BitcoinSV Fork Details
The main new features in the BitcoinSV that make it incompatible with the current protocol are an increase in the default block size limit to 128MB, increase of the 201 opcode limit within Bitcoin’s script system to a maximum of 500 opcodes, and a new set of opcodes including; OP_MUL, OP_LSHIFT, OP_RSHIFT, OP_INVERT.
The increase in the default block size limit will in theory allow miners on the BitcoinSV ruleset to produce and propagate blocks up to 128MB in size. It may be the case that the current state of the network cannot handle, or at least sustain, 128MB blocks but this will allow miners to decide if they want to try and produce blocks over 32MB (the current protocol limit agreed upon by miners).
Increasing the opcode limit will allow miners to make transactions using scripts of larger lengths. This means that more complex scripts can be developed.
The new opcodes allow new operations to happen within the Bitcoin scripting system.
 
What Are Your Options?
When the fork happens your coins will become available on both chains. This is because both chains will share the same blockchain history up until the point the fork occurs. Things are unfortunately not quite as simple as that (when are they ever in cryptoland?). Transactions that would be valid on both chains will occur on both chains. Your transactions will be considered valid on both chains as long as you do not use any of the exclusive features from either ruleset, or use inputs from transactions that are considered invalid on one of the chains. You can alternatively split your coins so that you can control them exclusively on each chain.
So what should you do? We won’t recommend what you should do with your own money, and this is not financial advice, but here are some of your options.
 
Do Nothing and HODL
The simplest option is to keep your Bitcoin Cash in a wallet you control and wait for things to blow over. Make sure you have the private keys and or the seed written down in at least one place to be able to recover your funds if needed. As long as you do not move your funds they will be available on both chains after the fork.
Risks - Price volatility. Like always the price can go up and down any amount. Only risk what you can afford to lose.
 
Sell BCH for Fiat
Another simple option is to sell your BCH for fiat. This means moving your Bitcoin Cash to an exchange such as Bitstamp.net, Kraken.com or Coinbase, and then selling them for a fiat currency. You may also consider then withdrawing your funds to your bank account for extra security (exchanges have been known to implode with everyone’s funds every now and again).
Risks - If the BCH price increase while you hold fiat your BCH holdings will be less if and when you buy back. Exchanges and banks can confiscate your money if they like (that why love Bitcoin remember). By selling you may also be liable for taxes in your jurisdiction.
 
Split Your Coins and HODL
If you want to be ready for anything then you can split your coins after the fork occurs. This means that you will be able to control your coins exclusively on each chain. You will still need to make sure you have your wallet(s) backed up and have the private keys and seeds written down somewhere.
To split your coins you can use a tool developed on Electron Cash HERE. This is unfortunately not a simple tool to use right now. Make sure to read the tips and advice given in that thread. You can also use http://forkfaucet.cash/ to receive a tiny amount of split coins to your address(es) so that they will become split once you spend from them.
Risks - This has the same risks as simply HODLing your BCH. You should also be aware that some services have decided to refuse to use split coins during the fork. This means that if you send them split coins they will not allow you to spend them. These services include: Yours.org, moneybutton, HandCash, CentBee and CoinText.
 
Split Your Coins and Sell Some
If you interested in gambling on which chain will be more successful you can split your coins using the method above, and can then send coins from either chain to an exchange that allows buying and selling of specific sides of the chain. Most exchanges have decided to close deposits and withdrawals of BCH and even trading of BCH until the outcome of the forks have become more clear. After the fork occurs exchanges will likely make announcements about whether which chain they will support (potentially both), and you will then be able to trade each fork as separate cryptocurrencies.
Risks - By selling your coins on one of the chains you will no longer be invested in that side of the fork. In the case that one side of the fork ceases to exist and you are only holding coins on that side, you will have lost that money. By selling you may also be liable for taxes in your jurisdiction.
 
Summary
It is unfortunate that Bitcoin Cash has to go through a fork without unanimous consensus on the new protocol rules. The unique situation with this fork, in particular, has presented some interesting new issues, and it is likely that we as a community will learn a lot from it.
We hope that in similar situations in the future that the major entities in the industry, including miners, developers, businesses and community leaders can come together to find compromise that keeps the ecosystem stable and focused on adoption.
Further Resources
You can get more information at bitcoincash.org, bitcoinabc.org, bitcoinsv.io, and bitcoin.com.
If you have further questions about this or just want to discuss the fork in general, we encourage you to join our chat at bitcoincashers.org/chat and join the conversation.
 
Edit: The fork will occur at roughly 17:40 UTC+0 15.11.2018
Edit 2: Join a livestream at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxeeQ_-QVNo
submitted by cashassociation to btc [link] [comments]

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core submitted by puck2 to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash Is Still the Best Cryptocurrency with the Brightest Future

In these dark times, with bitcoin cash (BCH) losing value seemingly every time you look at it (current $120), some might question their support or wonder if they made a mistake in choosing bitcoin cash.
It is true that you would have more value in fiat had you never bought and held BCH at any time since the great fork: it's valued lower than ever before. To add insult to injury, it is also true that bitcoin cash has been losing value faster than competing coins - at least since the fork.
These are my reasons for continuing to support the coin, despite the storm.
FIRSTLY Bitcoin cash is the most usable of all cryptos. Usability is mainly a combination of merchant adoption and transactability (speed and cost). There is no other coin, save BTC, that has a wider level of merchant adoption. The best thing is that merchant adoption of bitcoin cash is on the rise, which is something that really can't be said for many other coins.
My personal favorite businesses (by no means complete)
Name Type URL
OpenBazaar Epic decentralized marketplace https://openbazaar.org/
purse.io 20-30% discounts on Amazon https://purse.io/shop
Keys4Coins keys for digital software (Steam etc.) https://www.keys4coins.com/
CheapAir Flights and Hotels https://www.cheapair.com/
Overstock.com Kinda like Amazon, but with a cooler owner https://www.overstock.com/
eGifter very fast digital gift cards for most major retailers https://www.egifter.com/
BitPay payment processor, making it all possible https://bitpay.com
Coinbase payment processor, bank, trading platform https://coinbase.com
Acceptbitcoin Merchant listings https://acceptbitcoin.cash
Marco Coino Merchant listings https://www.coinline.co.nz/marco-coino/
Coinmap Merchant Listing for BTC (many accept BCH) https://coinmap.com
SECONDLY Bitcoin cash is committed to maintaining high transactability forever: "cash for the world", eventually enabling 50 transactions/day/person on earth. When you lose the ability to spend your money, or the friction of spending increases, your coins become worth less by at least the amount that a transaction costs, and actually by more still, because the counter party knows that they will be stuck with hard-to-spend coins and will be less willing to accept them. Bitcoin cash is among the very best coins with reliably high transactability, and the only one which is also a decentralized cryptocurrency. This gives me confidence that my coins will be as usable now as they will be when I pass them on to my children.
Here's a comparison of some of the main coins, tx fees, confirmation times, decentralization status.
coin decentralized current median tx fees / USD Settlement time/s
BCH yes 0.0041 instant settlement or 1 block
BTC yes 0.168 27 cents to be included within 2 blocks, no instant settlement
LTC yes 0.0069 2.5 min block times
XRP no 0.0048 fast
THIRDLY Fast paced development by multiple teams with a common road map that I agree with. I put this one last because it is the least interesting to users of the coin, but is incredibly important for the long term outlook. Bitcoin cash isn't aiming to be banker coin or statist coin like some of our less idealistic challengers. The developers aren't changing the road map to please regulators or appease governments or protect IP, like some of the recent defectors.
Here are some bitcoin cash full node implementations to take a look at
Project URL Notes
BitcoinABC https://www.bitcoinabc.org/ The first and most popular
BitcoinUnlimited https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/ nearly got BTC to increase blocksize back in the day
BitcoinXT https://bitcoinxt.software/ Started by Mike Hearn, still a great project
Parity https://github.com/paritytech/parity-bitcoin/ Written in Rust
Bitprim https://www.bitprim.org/ High performance node
Bchd https://bchd.cash/ My favorite, written in Go
Bcash https://bcoin.io/ javascript
Copernicus https://copernet.io/about Another client written in Go, recently mined a block
All things considered, there's good reason why bitcoin cash is one of the top coins.
However, Houston, we have a problem:
There is a social attack against bitcoin cash. We now not only have one group of people antagonistic to our road map (BTC maximalists) but also a more recent and well funded group (BSV maximalists). Together they are spreading a lot of FUD among the cryptocurrency community. Try not to get into heated arguments with them, you won't convince anybody and will just end up frustrated. Point out the positive things about BCH and don't be afraid to say why you like it.
Several exchanges are still not trading BCH. Most notably RightBTC and EXX which were both in the top 10 for BCH trading volume before the fork. We've been set back by the FUD surrounding the fork, not by the fork itself. Let's work to correct this!
To the future!
EDIT formatting, corrections to exchanges no longer supporting BCH
submitted by sqrt7744 to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

The Dirty, Nasty History of Bitcoin

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

A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be

Bitcoin takes power away from the government, and gives it to the people. Bitcoin not only takes away power from governments, but also makes the legacy banking system obsolete.
You think The Powers That Be will let this happen without a fight? Think again. Blockstream was formed for the purpose of stifling the growth of Bitcoin. No, they are not simply a greedy corporation that wishes to profit off of Bitcoin. The sole reason for Blockstream's existence is to cripple Bitcoin and make it useless.
The following people have all been Blockstream employees, and are Bitcoin Core developers (besides Adam Back):
Blockstream received $76 million in funding from AXA, one of the largest multinational insurance corporations in the world, whose (former) CEO and Chairman, Henri de Castries, is also Chairman of the Steering Committee for the Bilderberg Group.
Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin was to allow massive on-chain scaling so the entire world could use it. The 1 MB block size limit exists only to intentionally create problems for Bitcoin, driving up the fees, and making the coin useless. Adam Back was added to Blockstream for the sole reason that he has some "clout" because he was mentioned in Satoshi's whitepaper. A new leader was needed to replace Satoshi, and fight against his vision. This is Adam Back.
The main communication channels (/Bitcoin, BitcoinTalk Forums, and Bitcoin.org) are all owned by a man named Michael Marquardt, AKA theymos. Theymos has most likely been threatened, or paid off by powerful people. /Bitcoin is completely censored for the purpose of controlling the narrative. The CSS of the subreddit was even drastically altered to hide the fact that hundreds of comments were being removed through systematic censorship. Any talk of raising the block size limit, or criticism of Blockstream or Core, will get you censored and banned. In order to take over Bitcoin, you must control the narrative, and trick people into thinking that crippling Bitcoin with high fees is a good thing.
Bitcoin XT was created to try and alleviate Bitcoin's scaling problems. When this project gained traction, and Coinbase started testing with Bitcoin XT, Coinbase was removed from Bitcoin.org. These intimidation tactics from the BlockstreamCore regime are extremely common. There have been too many of these social attacks to even list. For example, Roger Ver is often called a scammer, a felon, and a convicted criminal who went to prison for selling explosives. These are the typical ad hominem attacks used. Roger Ver, along with thousands of other people sold harmless firecrackers on eBay. People play with firecrackers (at their own risk) for fun, and to have a good time. They are also technically explosives. The law on the sale of these was also never enforced, and many people bought them off eBay. So although Roger is technically a criminal, because he committed a "crime", and he technically DID sell "explosives", people try to make you think that maybe Roger was actually a dangerous domestic terrorist arms-dealer who sold explosives as weapons.
Projects like Bitcoin Unlimited were created in an attempt to fix the scaling problems in Bitcoin, and gained widespread community support. But talk of BU in /Bitcoin was disallowed. BU was attacked viciously in every way shape and form. The developers were accused of running a scam, trying to purposely centralize Bitcoin, etc. BU was a major threat, because it would take power away from BlockstreamCore, and make Bitcoin great again. BU on many different occasions was attacked using exploits in its code, to shutdown BU nodes. These attacks were almost certainly done by members of Core, like Greg Maxwell. These events were widely publicized by /Bitcoin in an attempt to shame BU and prove that the developers are incompetent.
Over time, many other blatantly obvious astroturfing campaigns took place in order to control the narrative. UASF, NO2X, AntBleed, and ASICBoost were all bogus astroturfing campaigns meant to stir up controversy where there was none, and to "rally the troops".
In the early months of 2017, I witnessed a "community flippening" occur, in which there were more hardcore/legitimate members of the Bitcoin community in /btc, than in /Bitcoin. People were waking up to the censorship and social attacks that were occurring. The people who remain in /Bitcoin at this point are mostly newbies who have just entered the space, useful idiots who can't think for themselves and have undying loyalty to Core, and paid shills.
After realizing that BlockstreamCore will never compromise, Bitcoin Cash was created to restore Satoshi's original vision. Bitcoin Cash was immediately attacked in many ways. It was called ChinaCoin in an attempt to trick people into thinking it's a centrally controlled Chinese scam coin. It was called Bcash (and sometimes Btrash) in an attempt to take Bitcoin out of the name. When users posted about Bitcoin Cash in /Bitcoin, they were directed to post to the fake /Bcash subreddit. Bitfinex and Trezor even listed the coin as "Bcash" even though this just confused people more, as Bitcoin Cash was never referred to as Bcash by any of the development teams.
Bitcoin Cash was attacked relentlessly. When Coinbase and Bitstamp added Bitcoin Cash, /Bitcoin tried to rally the troops to boycott them. When the Bitcoin.com wallet added Bitcoin Cash, /Bitcoin attempted to rally the troops to leave hundreds of 1 star reviews on the app store.
Eventually a popular tipping bot called "tippr" was invented. Over a couple months, this gained massive traction and increased adoption substantially. Tippr was attacked in recent hacking attacks, where password reset links were sent to the emails of Reddit accounts, the passwords of these accounts were changed by the attackers, and then the Bitcoin Cash in their tippr balance was stolen. This was one of the greatest mistakes of the BlockstreamCore regime. It is now blatantly obvious that the email accounts of these users were not compromised. It is also unlikely that this is an exploit in Reddit itself. Reddit is the EIGHTH most popular website in the world, according to Alexa rank. A zero day exploit that allows ANY REDDIT ACCOUNT to be taken over, could potentially sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars on the black market. Yet the exploit was used to steal maybe $5,000 bucks tops, from a Bitcoin Cash tip bot? How come the tip bots of other cryptocurrencies were not targeted? The answer is because it wasn't about the money! Bitcoin Cash is one of the greatest threats in the cryptocurrency space, and it is being specifically targeted in many attacks. I don't expect Reddit to reveal any details of how the tippr hack was done.
Extremely powerful forces are behind the takeover of Bitcoin, and the attacks on Bitcoin Cash. For those of us that have been around a while, it's blatantly obvious what is happening.
submitted by BitAlien to btc [link] [comments]

A Guide To The BCH Fork on November 15th - Be Informed! (x-post from /r/btc)

original thread:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/9wthuv/a_guide_to_the_bch_fork_on_november_15th_be/
BCH November 15th Forking Guide
Intro
As you may have heard, on 15th November 2018 the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain will fork into at least two separate chains. We felt it our duty to provide information to the community on the situation that we hope will offer some clarity on this rather complex situation.
What Is A Fork?
A fork occurs when at least one group of miners decide to follow a separate set of rules from the current consensus protocol. Due to the way bitcoin is designed, these miners will then operate on a separate network from the current network. This was in fact how Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash was created from the original Bitcoin. Both changed the consensus rules in different ways that made them incompatible.
To make the current situation slightly more complex, there are to be two sets of miners that are changing the protocol rules away from the current protocol. It is not expected that the currently operating consensus rules will be in operation by any significant set of miners after November 15th. This means that after November 15th there will be two new sets of competing protocol rules. For simplicity these will be described as the BitcoinABC ruleset and the BitcoinSV ruleset (although other implementations such as Bitcoin Unlimited, bcash, bchd, BitcoinXT and bitprim all also have the ABC consensus ruleset).
This is quite a unique fork situation as one side (BitcoinSV) has indicated that they will be willing to attack their competition (BitcoinABC) using reorgs and doublespends to destabilise and reduce confidence in it.
BitcoinABC Fork Details
The main new features in the BitcoinABC that make it incompatible with the current protocol are CTOR and DSV.
To summarise:
CTOR (Canonical Transaction Ordering) is a technology that allows blocks to be transmitted in a much more efficient way. This means that as blocks become larger as the network gains more adoption, the hardware and bandwidth requirements on nodes is decreased. This reduces centralisation pressures and allows us to scale the network with fewer adverse effects. You can read more about CTOR in this excellent ARTICLE by u/markblundeberg.
DSV (CheckDataSigVerify) is a technology that allows oracles directly on the Bitcoin blockchain. This means that the transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain can be dependent on actions that happen in the real world. For example you could bet on the weather tomorrow, or if a specific candidate wins an election, all directly on the blockchain. You can read more about DSV at this excellent ARTICLE by u/mengerian.
BitcoinSV Fork Details
The main new features in the BitcoinSV that make it incompatible with the current protocol are an increase in the default block size limit to 128MB, increase of the 201 opcode limit within Bitcoin’s script system to a maximum of 500 opcodes, and a new set of opcodes including; OP_MUL, OP_LSHIFT, OP_RSHIFT, OP_INVERT.
The increase in the default block size limit will in theory allow miners on the BitcoinSV ruleset to produce and propagate blocks up to 128MB in size. It may be the case that the current state of the network cannot handle, or at least sustain, 128MB blocks but this will allow miners to decide if they want to try and produce blocks over 32MB (the current protocol limit agreed upon by miners).
Increasing the opcode limit will allow miners to make transactions using scripts of larger lengths. This means that more complex scripts can be developed.
The new opcodes allow new operations to happen within the Bitcoin scripting system.
What Are Your Options?
When the fork happens your coins will become available on both chains. This is because both chains will share the same blockchain history up until the point the fork occurs. Things are unfortunately not quite as simple as that (when are they ever in cryptoland?). Transactions that would be valid on both chains will occur on both chains. Your transactions will be considered valid on both chains as long as you do not use any of the exclusive features from either ruleset, or use inputs from transactions that are considered invalid on one of the chains. You can alternatively split your coins so that you can control them exclusively on each chain.
So what should you do? We won’t recommend what you should do with your own money, and this is not financial advice, but here are some of your options.
Do Nothing and HODL
The simplest option is to keep your Bitcoin Cash in a wallet you control and wait for things to blow over. Make sure you have the private keys and or the seed written down in at least one place to be able to recover your funds if needed. As long as you do not move your funds they will be available on both chains after the fork.
Risks - Price volatility. Like always the price can go up and down any amount. Only risk what you can afford to lose.
Sell BCH for Fiat
Another simple option is to sell your BCH for fiat. This means moving your Bitcoin Cash to an exchange such as Bitstamp.net, Kraken.com or Coinbase, and then selling them for a fiat currency. You may also consider then withdrawing your funds to your bank account for extra security (exchanges have been known to implode with everyone’s funds every now and again).
Risks - If the BCH price increase while you hold fiat your BCH holdings will be less if and when you buy back. Exchanges and banks can confiscate your money if they like (that why love Bitcoin remember). By selling you may also be liable for taxes in your jurisdiction.
Split Your Coins and HODL
If you want to be ready for anything then you can split your coins after the fork occurs. This means that you will be able to control your coins exclusively on each chain. You will still need to make sure you have your wallet(s) backed up and have the private keys and seeds written down somewhere.
To split your coins you can use a tool developed on Electron Cash HERE. This is unfortunately not a simple tool to use right now. Make sure to read the tips and advice given in that thread.
Risks - This has the same risks as simply HODLing your BCH. You should also be aware that some services have decided to refuse to use split coins during the fork. This means that if you send them split coins they will not allow you to spend them. These services include: Yours.org, moneybutton, HandCash, CentBee and CoinText.
Split Your Coins and Sell Some
If you interested in gambling on which chain will be more successful you can split your coins using the method above, and can then send coins from either chain to an exchange that allows buying and selling of specific sides of the chain. Most exchanges have decided to close deposits and withdrawals of BCH and even trading of BCH until the outcome of the forks have become more clear. After the fork occurs exchanges will likely make announcements about whether which chain they will support (potentially both), and you will then be able to trade each fork as separate cryptocurrencies.
Risks - By selling your coins on one of the chains you will no longer be invested in that side of the fork. In the case that one side of the fork ceases to exist and you are only holding coins on that side, you will have lost that money. By selling you may also be liable for taxes in your jurisdiction.
Summary
It is unfortunate that Bitcoin Cash has to go through a fork without unanimous consensus on the new protocol rules. The unique situation with this fork, in particular, has presented some interesting new issues, and it is likely that we as a community will learn a lot from it.
We hope that in similar situations in the future that the major entities in the industry, including miners, developers, businesses and community leaders can come together to find compromise that keeps the ecosystem stable and focused on adoption.
If you have further questions about this or just want to discuss the fork in general, we encourage you to join our chat at bitcoincashers.org/chat and join the conversation.
I've been interested in this fork which is happening this Friday. This fork is unique and to my knowledge the only coin to hard fork where there are two different sets of changes, not one set of changes that the miners disagree / agree on like was the case with the original bitcoin cash fork.
What are your thoughts on Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV? it seems the community is quite split on this. SV proponents claim that this is sticking to Satoshi's ethos for bitcoin, it is strictly for payment, brings back some old BTC opcodes increases the potential block size to 128mb. While ABC, along with CTOR, will allow a new opcode OP_CHECKDATASIG which will permit the validation of messages from outside the blockchain. This will enable uses such as the use of oracles and cross-chain atomic contracts. This new opcode appears to be the most contentious issue surrounding ABC (are there more?)
There is quite a lot of drama around this, it will be an interesting event https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-cash-drama-battle-lines-drawn-ahead-of-scheduled-hard-fork
edit: i copied the wrong post
submitted by Neophyte- to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

A serious discussion about BCH and what we need before we can even talk about mainstream adoption

TL;DR:
-> pushing wallets to set default fee to 1 sat/byte, and maybe even reducing it further.
-> Development to make 0 conf as safe as possible, this is our biggest selling point
-> Making addresses user friendly and almost fool proof.
-> Only then can we market to the mainstream.
Just thought I'd offer my 2 satoshi's on what I think BCH needs to focus on. I'd love to get a discussion going on. In my opinion we are not ready to start marketing ourselves to the mainstream yet.
-> Transaction fees and wallets: We need to seriously push wallet providers (memorydealers) to automatically set the default fee as 1 sat/byte on all wallets. This is the minimum and no one should be paying anymore than this, ever, as blocks should never be full. (Unless ofc if you want to tip the miners, but that should be a custom option).
Even better then this to be honest would to make every transaction have identical fees (Very, very low fees preferably). Now I know this ignores different transaction sizes and I don't even know if its possible.
but (1) blocks aren't full and so it won't matter, miners will still be economically incentivised to include it in a block.
(2) It's so much easier to market (i.e. instead of someone like Roger saying "transact for less than a cent") we have a somewhat definitive line like "transact for 1/10th of a cent!).
(3) We should never want to create a fee market. Now I know that subcent fees don't sound like a fee market, but even 1-2c per transaction is detrimental to BCH adoption IMO as it reduces BCHs use for people on very low incomes(i.e. $1 per day). Obviously for people like me living in a cushy first world country, its not an issue, but we're going for the masses and competing with the likes of VISA and Mastercard who let users transact completely for free.
(4) IIRC back in the day BTC had space in the blocks reserved for free transactions, I think we should try implement something like this in BCH today. i.e. a certain % of a block is reserved for free transactions, this might allow what some people like to call "spam" but it will never increase the fees of fee paying transactions, but merely create a queue for free transactions to be processed in blocks, but this is fine.
-> BCH addresses. I know we are looking at changing them right now, but the solution needs to be something that is (1) human readable and (2) extremely easily recognized with a quick glance. This again moves BCH to being more intuitive and easily usable by your average joe who doesn't care about how stuff works, just that it works.
Linking to this, ethereums feature of ".eth" addresses is amazing IMO. I understand this isn't currently possible with BCH due to a lack of smart contracts but something like this should be a VERY high priority. This would prevent people being phised by the clipboard malware. It's pretty easy to see if "coinbase.bch" has been changed to "hackersaddress.bch"
-> 0 Conf. I think this should be the number 1 priority. What people (bitcoin) don't realise is that high fees and SegWit aside, BTC will never be used as a currency due to lack of 0-conf. This needs to be our prime selling point as reliable 0 conf makes BCH the safest and quickest coin bar none. From my understanding of the bitcoin network, if we pushed all node implementations to include BitcoinXT's feature of rebroadcasting double spends, then 0-conf would be completely safe after a few seconds wait. THIS IS HUGE. With this, BCH competes with Mastercard and VISA in terms of processing time and this is the key for adoption.
Additionally, once this is the case, we can come up with a coherent community message to advertise to the mainstream. Right now I hear some people saying "0 conf isn't safe because X" and some saying "yeh its fine to accept 0 conf". Yes I know for low transaction amounts right now 0 conf is safe as the effort to double spend is not worth it; but we need to make 0 conf as safe as possible in order that we can say "yeh 0 conf is safe for processing your $500 sale on a designer suit" etc etc.
On the main dev teams roadmaps I don't see anything about 0 conf. I understand Bitcoin ABC wants to reduce blocktimes to 1-2.5 minutes, but even this isn't good enough as its far slower than visa and mastercard: we NEED to improve the safety of 0 conf.
EDIT: A good point made by someone else: we should push towards the use and standardization of units such as "bits". I know they currently exist, but no one ever uses them except when using tippr. It would be hard for your average joe to see if the coffee price is worth it if its "0.00032921 BCH), in 'bits' format something like this becomes far more readable.
I hope this makes sense, these are my genuine thoughts on what we need to improve about BCH before we can market for mainstream adoption. If anyone can add anything else to this list then that would be great.
submitted by OlimEnterprises to btc [link] [comments]

The Astounding Incompetence, Negligence, and Dishonesty of the Bitcoin Unlimited Developers

On August 26, 2016 someone noticed that their Classic node had been forked off of the "Big Blocks Testnet" that Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were running. Neither implementation was testing their consensus code on any other testnets; this was effectively the only testnet being used to test either codebase. The issue was due to a block on the testnet that was mined on July 30, almost a full month prior to anyone noticing the fork at all, which was in violation of the BIP109 specification that Classic miners were purportedly adhering to at the time. Gregory Maxwell observed:
That was a month ago, but it's only being noticed now. I guess this is demonstrating that you are releasing Bitcoin Classic without much testing and that almost no one else is either? :-/
The transaction in question doesn't look at all unusual, other than being large. It was, incidentally, mined by pool.bitcoin.com, which was signaling support for BIP109 in the same block it mined that BIP 109 violating transaction.
Later that day, Maxwell asked Roger Ver to clarify whether he was actually running Bitcoin Classic on the bitcoin.com mining pool, who dodged the question and responded with a vacuous reply that attempted to inexplicably change the subject to "censorship" instead.
Andrew Stone (the lead developer of Bitcoin Unlimited) voiced confusion about BIP109 and how Bitcoin Unlimited violated the specification for it (while falsely signaling support for it). He later argued that Bitcoin Unlimited didn't need to bother adhering to specifications that it signaled support for, and that doing so would violate the philosophy of the implementation. Peter Rizun shared this view. Neither developer was able to answer Maxwell's direct question about the violation of BIP109 §4/5, which had resulted in the consensus divergence (fork).
Despite Maxwell having provided a direct link to the transaction violating BIP109 that caused the chain split, and explaining in detail what the results of this were, later Andrew Stone said:
I haven't even bothered to find out the exact cause. We have had BUIP016 passed to adhere to strict BIP109 compatibility (at least in what we generate) by merging Classic code, but BIP109 is DOA -- so no-one bothered to do it.
I think that the only value to be had from this episode is to realise that consensus rules should be kept to an absolute, money-function-protecting minimum. If this was on mainnet, I'll be the Classic users would be unhappy to be forked onto a minority branch because of some arbitrary limit that is yet another thing would have needed to be fought over as machine performance improves but the limit stays the same.
Incredibly, when a confused user expressed disbelief regarding the fork, Andrew Stone responded:
Really? There was no classic fork? As i said i didnt bother to investigate. Can you give me a link to more info? Its important to combat this fud.
Of course, the proof of the fork (and the BIP109-violating block/transaction) had already been provided to Stone by Maxwell. Andrew Stone was willing to believe that the entire fork was imaginary, in the face of verifiable proof of the incident. He admits that he didn't investigate the subject at all, even though that was the only testnet that Unlimited could have possibly been performing any meaningful tests on at the time, and even though this fork forced Classic to abandon BIP109 entirely, leaving it vulnerable to the types of attacks that Gavin Andresen described in his Guided Tour of the 2mb Fork:
“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous... It is set to 1.3 gigabytes, which is big enough so none of the blocks currently in the block chain would hit it, but small enough to make it impossible to create poison blocks that take minutes to validate.
As a result of this fork (which Stone was clueless enough to doubt had even happened), Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were both left vulnerable to such attacks. Fascinatingly, this fact did not seem to bother the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited at all.
On November 17, 2016 Andrew Stone decided to post an article titled A Short Tour of Bitcoin Core wherein he claimed:
Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing as you will see in the rest of this document.
The irony of this claim should soon become very apparent.
In the rest of the article, Stone wrote with venomous and overtly hostile rhetoric:
As we mine the garbage in the Bitcoin Core code together... I want you to realise that these issues are systemic to Core
He went on to describe what he believed to be multiple bugs that had gone unnoticed by the Core developers, and concluded his article with the following paragraph:
I hope when reading these issues, you will realise that the Bitcoin Unlimited team might actually be the most careful committers and testers, with a very broad and dedicated test infrastructure. And I hope that you will see these Bitcoin Core commits— bugs that are not tricky and esoteric, but simple issues that well known to average software engineers —and commits of “Very Ugly Hack” code that do not reflect the care required for an important financial network. I hope that you will realise that, contrary to statements from Adam Back and others, the Core team does not have unique skills and abilities that qualify them to administer this network.
As soon as the article was published, it was immediately and thoroughly debunked. The "bugs" didn't exist in the current Core codebase; some were results of how Andrew had "mucked with wallet code enough to break" it, and "many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand", or had been fixed years ago in Core, and thus only affected obsolete clients (ironically including Bitcoin Unlimited itself).
As Gregory Maxwell said:
Perhaps the biggest and most concerning danger here isn't that they don't know what they're doing-- but that they don't know what they don't know... to the point where this is their best attempt at criticism.
Amusingly enough, in the "Let's Lose Some Money" section of the article, Stone disparages an unnamed developer for leaving poor comments in a portion of the code, unwittingly making fun of Satoshi himself in the process.
To summarize: Stone set out to criticize the Core developer team, and in the process revealed that he did not understand the codebase he was working on, had in fact personally introduced the majority of the bugs that he was criticizing, and was actually completely unable to identify any bugs that existed in current versions Core. Worst of all, even after receiving feedback on his article, he did not appear to comprehend (much less appreciate) any of these facts.
On January 27, 2017, Bitcoin Unlimited excitedly released v1.0 of their software, announcing:
The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.
A mere 2 days later, on January 29, their code accidentally attempted to hard-fork the network. Despite there being a very clear and straightforward comment in Bitcoin Core explaining the space reservation for coinbase transactions in the code, Bitcoin Unlimited obliviously merged a bug into their client which resulted in an invalid block (23 bytes larger than 1MB) being mined by Roger Ver's Bitcoin.com mining pool on January 29, 2017, costing the pool a minimum of 13.2 bitcoins. A large portion of Bitcoin Unlimited nodes and miners (which naively accepted this block as valid) were temporarily banned from the network as a result, as well.
The code change in question revealed that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers were not only "commenting out and replacing code without understanding what it's for" as well as bypassing multiple safety-checks that should have prevented such issues from occurring, but that they were not performing any peer review or testing whatsoever of many of the code changes they were making. This particular bug was pushed directly to the master branch of Bitcoin Unlimited (by Andrew Stone), without any associated pull requests to handle the merge or any reviewers involved to double-check the update. This once again exposed the unprofessionalism and negligence of the development team and process of Bitcoin Unlimited, and in this case, irrefutably had a negative effect in the real world by costing Bitcoin.com thousands of dollars worth of coins.
In effect, this was the first public mainnet fork attempt by Bitcoin Unlimited. Unsurprisingly, the attempt failed, costing the would-be forkers real bitcoins as a result. It is possible that the costs of this bug are much larger than the lost rewards and fees from this block alone, as other Bitcoin Unlimited miners may have been expending hash power in the effort to mine slightly-oversized (invalid) blocks prior to this incident, inadvertently wasting resources in the doomed pursuit of invalid coins.
On March 14, 2017, a remote exploit vulnerability discovered in Bitcoin Unlimited crashed 75% of the BU nodes on the network in a matter of minutes.
In order to downplay the incident, Andrew Stone rapidly published an article which attempted to imply that the remote-exploit bug also affected Core nodes by claiming that:
approximately 5% of the “Satoshi” Bitcoin clients (Core, Unlimited, XT) temporarily dropped off of the network
In reddit comments, he lied even more explicitly, describing it as "a bug whose effects you can see as approximate 5% drop in Core node counts" as well as a "network-wide Bitcoin client failure". He went so far as to claim:
the Bitcoin Unlimited team found the issue, identified it as an attack and fixed the problem before the Core team chose to ignore it
The vulnerability in question was in thinblock.cpp, which has never been part of Bitcoin Core; in other words, this vulnerability only affected Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
In the same Medium article, Andrew Stone appears to have doctored images to further deceive readers. In the reddit thread discussing this deception, Andrew Stone denied that he had maliciously edited the images in question, but when questioned in-depth on the subject, he resorted to citing his own doctored images as sources and refused to respond to further requests for clarification or replication steps.
Beyond that, the same incident report (and images) conspicuously omitted the fact that the alleged "5% drop" on the screenshotted (and photoshopped) node-graph was actually due to the node crawler having been rebooted, rather than any problems with Core nodes. This fact was plainly displayed on the 21 website that the graph originated from, but no mention of it was made in Stone's article or report, even after he was made aware of it and asked to revise or retract his deceptive statements.
There were actually 3 (fundamentally identical) Xthin-assert exploits that Unlimited developers unwittingly publicized during this episode, which caused problems for Bitcoin Classic, which was also vulnerable.
On top of all of the above, the vulnerable code in question had gone unnoticed for 10 months, and despite the Unlimited developers (including Andrew Stone) claiming to have (eventually) discovered the bug themselves, it later came out that this was another lie; an external security researcher had actually discovered it and disclosed it privately to them. This researcher provided the following quotes regarding Bitcoin Unlimited:
I am quite beside myself at how a project that aims to power a $20 billion network can make beginner’s mistakes like this.
I am rather dismayed at the poor level of code quality in Bitcoin Unlimited and I suspect there [is] a raft of other issues
The problem is, the bugs are so glaringly obvious that when fixing it, it will be easy to notice for anyone watching their development process,
it doesn’t help if the software project is not discreet about fixing critical issues like this.
In this case, the vulnerabilities are so glaringly obvious, it is clear no one has audited their code because these stick out like a sore thumb
In what appeared to be a desperate attempt to distract from the fundamental ineptitude that this vulnerability exposed, Bitcoin Unlimited supporters (including Andrew Stone himself) attempted to change the focus to a tweet that Peter Todd made about the vulnerability, blaming him for exposing it and prompting attackers to exploit it... but other Unlimited developers revealed that the attacks had actually begun well before Todd had tweeted about the vulnerability. This was pointed out many times, even by Todd himself, but Stone ignored these facts a week later, and shamelessly lied about the timeline in a propagandistic effort at distraction and misdirection.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

Is Bitcoin Unlimited also going to remove "RBF"? As many recall, RBF was a previous, unwanted soft-fork / vandalism from clueless "Core" dev Peter Todd, which killed zero-conf for retail - supported by the usual lies, censorship, fiat and brainwashing provided by Blockstream and r\bitcoin.

Is Peter Todd's unwanted RBF ("Replace-by-Fee") feature vandalism also finally going to be removed with Bitcoin Unlimited?
I saw this earlier post about it, but I'm not sure if this is still in effect:
"The Bitcoin Unlimited implementation excludes RBF as BU supports zero-confirmation use-cases inherent to peer-to-peer cash."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5bcwz2/the_bitcoin_unlimited_implementation_excludes_rbf/
Below is a compendium of posts from last year, chronicling the whole dreary mess involving RBF.
The Bitcoin community never wanted RBF (Peter Todd's "Replace-by-Fee").
A "Core" dev (the well-known vandal/programmer Peter Todd) tried to force RBF on people, against the wishes of the community - using the usual tactics of lies, brainwashing and censorship - with support / approval from the censored r\bitcoin and the corporate fiat-funded Blockstream.
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/
Peter Todd's RBF (Replace-By-Fee) goes against one of the foundational principles of Birtcoin: IRREVOCABLE CASH TRANSACTIONS. RBF is the most radical, controversial change ever proposed to Bitcoin - and it is being forced on the community with no consensus, no debate and no testing. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ukxnp/peter_todds_rbf_replacebyfee_goes_against_one_of/
By merging RBF over massive protests, Peter Todd / Core have openly declared war on the Bitcoin community - showing that all their talk about so-called "consensus" has been a lie. They must now follow Peter's own advice and "present themselves as a separate team with different goals."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xpl0f/by_merging_rbf_over_massive_protests_peter_todd/
Was there 'consensus' about RBF? I personally didn't even hear about it until about a week before it soft-forked (read: it was unilaterally released) by Core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4397gq/was_there_consensus_about_rbf_i_personally_didnt/
Consensus! JGarzik: "RBF would be anti-social on the network" / Charlie Lee, Coinbase : "RBF is irrational and harmful to Bitcoin" / Gavin: "RBF is a bad idea" / Adam Back: "Blowing up 0-confirm transactions is vandalism" / Hearn: RBF won't work and would be harmful for Bitcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/
The blockchain is a timestamp server. Its purpose is to guarantee the valid ordering of transactions. We should question strongly anything that degrades transaction ordering, such as full mempools, RBF, etc.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4t33cg/the_blockchain_is_a_timestamp_server_its_purpose/
Rethinking RBF and realizing how bad it actually is.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59xd2m/rethinking_rbf_and_realizing_how_bad_it_actually/
When Peter Todd previously added RBF to a pool, it was such a disaster it had to be immediately rolled back:
yeehaw4: "When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes." / pizzaface18: "Peter ... tried to push a change that will cripple some use cases of Bitcoin."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/
RBF needlessly confused and complicated the user experience of Bitcoin
RBF explicitly encouraged user to "double-spend", and explicitly encouraged people to repeatedly change change the receiver and amount of already-sent transactions - which obviously was supposed to be taboo in Bitcoin.
Usability Nightmare: RBF is "sort of like writing a paper check, but filling in the recipient's name and the amount in pencil so you can erase it later and change it." - rowdy_beaver
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42lhe7/usability_nightmare_rbf_is_sort_of_like_writing_a/
"RBF" ... or "CRCA"? Instead of calling it "RBF" (Replace-by-Fee) it might be more accurate to call it "CRCA" (Change-the-Recipient-and-Change-the-Amount). But then everyone would know just how dangerous this so-called "feature" is.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42wwfm/rbf_or_crca_instead_of_calling_it_rbf/
Proposed RBF slogan: "Now you can be your own PayPal / VISA and cancel your payments instantly, with no middleman!"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42ly0h/proposed_rbf_slogan_now_you_can_be_your_own/
Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3umat8/upeter_r_on_rbf_1_easier_for_scammers_on_local/
RBF was totally unnecessary for Bitcoin - but Blockstream wanted it because it created a premature "fee market" and because it was necessary for their planned centralized / censorable Lightning Hub Central Banking "network"
Reminder: JGarzik already proposed a correct and clean solution for the (infrequent and unimportant) so-called "problem" of "stuck transactions", which was way simpler than Peter Todd's massively unpopular and needlessly complicated RBF: Simply allow "stuck transactions" to time-out after 72 hours.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42va11/reminder_jgarzik_already_proposed_a_correct_and/
RBF and 1 MB max blocksize go hand-in-hand: "RBF is only useful if users engage in bidding wars for scarce block space." - SillyBumWith7Stars ... "If the block size weren't lifted from 1 MB, and many more people wanted to send transactions, then RBF would be an essential feature." - slowmoon
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42llgh/rbf_and_1_mb_max_blocksize_go_handinhand_rbf_is/
RBF has nothing to do with fixing 'stuck' transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uqpap/rbf_has_nothing_to_do_with_fixing_stuck/
"Reliable opt-in RBF is quite necessary for Lightning" - Anduckk lets the cat out of the bag
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y8d61/reliable_optin_rbf_is_quite_necessary_fo
Blockstream CEO Austin Hill lies, saying "We had nothing to do with the development of RBF" & "None of our revenue today or our future revenue plans depend or rely on small blocks." Read inside for three inconvenient truths about RBF and Blockstream's real plans, which they'll never admit to you.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41ccvs/blockstream_ceo_austin_hill_lies_saying_we_had/
Quotes show that RBF is part of Core-Blockstream's strategy to: (1) create fee markets prematurely; (2) kill practical zero-conf for retail ("turn BitPay into a big smoking crater"); (3) force users onto LN; and (4) impose On-By-Default RBF ("check a box that says Send Transaction Irreversibly")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uw2ff/quotes_show_that_rbf_is_part_of_coreblockstreams/
It's a sad day when Core devs appear to understand RBF less than jstolfi. I would invite them to read his explanation of the dynamics of RBF, and tell us if they think he's right or wrong. I think he's right - and he's in line with Satoshi's vision, while Core is not.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42m4po/its_a_sad_day_when_core_devs_appear_to_understand/
There were several different proposed "flavors" of RBF: opt-in RBF, opt-out RBF, "full" RBF, 3-flag RBF (which includes FSS-RBF), 2-flag RBF (with no FSS-RBF)...
Of course:
  • The terminology was not clearly defined or understood, and was often used incorrectly in debates, contributing to confusion and enabling lies
  • This was another example of how Peter Todd is completely unaware of the importance of the User Experience (UX)
  • RBF supporters exploited the confusion by lying and misleading people - claiming that only the "safer" forms of RBF would be implemented - and then quietly also implementing the more "dangerous" ones.
3-flag RBF (which includes FSS-RBF) would have been safer than 2-flag RBF (with no FSS-RBF). RBF-with-no-FSS has already been user-tested - and rejected in favor of FSS-RBF. So, why did Peter Todd give us 2-flag RBF with no FSS-RBF? Another case of Core ignoring user requirements and testing?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo1ot/3flag_rbf_which_includes_fssrbf_would_have_been/
8 months ago, many people on btc (and on bitcoin) warned that Core's real goal with RBF was to eventually introduce "Full RBF". Those people got attacked with bogus arguments like "It's only Opt-In RBF, not Full RBF." But those people were right, and once again Core is lying and hurting Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4z7tr0/8_months_ago_many_people_on_rbtc_and_on_rbitcoin/
Now that we have Opt-In Full RBF in new core (less problematic version) Peter Todd is promoting Full RBF. That didn't take long...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47cq79/now_that_we_have_optin_full_rbf_in_new_coreless/
So is Core seriously going to have full-RBF now ? Are the BTC businesses OK with that ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4z62pj/so_is_core_seriously_going_to_have_fullrbf_now/
RBF slippery slope as predicted...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4y1s08/rbf_slippery_slope_as_predicted/
Overall, RBF was unnecessary and harmful to Bitcoin.
It killed an already-working feature (zero-conf for retail); it made Bitcoin more complicated; it needlessly complicated the code and needlessly confused, divided and alienated the many people in the community; and it also upset investors.
RBF and booting mempool transactions will require more node bandwidth from the network, not less, than increasing the max block size.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42whsb/rbf_and_booting_mempool_transactions_will_require/
RBF is a "poison pill" designed to create spam for nodes and scare away vendors.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3v4t3rbf_is_a_poison_pill_designed_to_create_spam_fo
Evidence (anecdotal?) from /BitcoinMarkets that Core / Blockstream's destructiveness (smallblocks, RBF, fee increases) is actually starting to scare away investors who are concerned about fundamentals
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wt32k/evidence_anecdotal_from_rbitcoinmarkets_that_core/
The whole RBF episode has been a prime example of how Blockstream and Core (and the censored forum they support: r\bitcoin) are out of touch with the needs of actual Bitcoin users.
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/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

New to Bitcoin?

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

History: /btc vs /Bitcoin

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

Bitcoin Network Hard Forks

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

What Happens Now

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

TL:DR;

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

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")

TL;DR:
~ YouDoTheMath u/ydtm
Details:
(1) Who is AXA? Why and how would they want to suppress the Bitcoin price?
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/
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/
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/
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/
(2) What evidence do we have that Core and AXA-owned Blockstream are actually impacting (suppressing) the Bitcoin price?
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/
This graph shows Bitcoin price and volume (ie, blocksize of transactions on the blockchain) rising hand-in-hand in 2011-2014. In 2015, Core/Blockstream tried to artificially freeze the blocksize - and artificially froze the price. Bitcoin Classic will allow volume - and price - to freely rise again.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44xrw4/this_graph_shows_bitcoin_price_and_volume_ie/
Also see a similar graph in u/Peter__R's recent article on Medium - where the graph clearly shows the same Bitcoin price suppression - ie price uncoupling from adoption and dipping below the previous tightly correlated trend - starting right at that fateful moment when Blockstream came on the scene and told Bitcoiners that we can't have nice things anymore like on-chain scaling and increasing adoption and price: late 2014.
Graph - Visualizing Metcalfe's Law: The relationship between Bitcoin's market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/574l2q/graph_visualizing_metcalfes_law_the_relationship/
Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dfb3bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/
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/
(3) "But no - they'd never do that!"
Actually - yes, they would. And "they" already are. For years, governments and central bankers have been spending trillions in fiat on wars - and eg suppressing precious metals prices by flooding the market with "fake (paper) gold" and "fake (paper) silver" - to prevent the debt- & war-backed PetroDollar from collapsing.
The owners of Blockstream are spending $76 million to do a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin by manipulating the Core devs & the Chinese miners. This is cheap compared to the $ trillions spent on the wars on Iraq & Libya - who also defied the Fed / PetroDollar / BIS private central banking cartel.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5q6kjo/the_owners_of_blockstream_are_spending_76_million/
JPMorgan suppresses gold & silver prices to prop up the USDollar - via "naked short selling" of GLD & SLV ETFs. Now AXA (which owns $94 million of JPMorgan stock) may be trying to suppress Bitcoin price - via tiny blocks. But AXA will fail - because the market will always "maximize coinholder value"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vjne5/jpmorgan_suppresses_gold_silver_prices_to_prop_up/
Why did Blockstream CTO u/nullc Greg Maxwell risk being exposed as a fraud, by lying about basic math? He tried to convince people that Bitcoin does not obey Metcalfe's Law (claiming that Bitcoin price & volume are not correlated, when they obviously are). Why is this lie so precious to him?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57dsgz/why_did_blockstream_cto_unullc_greg_maxwell_risk/
If you had $75 million invested in Blockstream, and you saw that stubbornly freezing the blocksize at 1 MB for the next year was clogging up the network and could kill the currency before LN even had a chance to roll out, wouldn't you support an immediate increase to 2 MB to protect your investment?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/48xm28/if_you_had_75_million_invested_in_blockstream_and/
[Tinfoil] What do these seven countries have in common? (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran) In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3yits0/tinfoil_what_do_these_seven_countries_have_in/
(4) What can we do to fight back and let Bitcoin's price continue to rise again?
  • Reject the Central Blocksize Planners at Core/Blockstream - and the censors at r\bitcoin.
  • Install Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based blocksize in accordance with Satoshi's original vision.
  • Be patient - and persistent - and decentralized - and Bitcoin will inevitably win.
The moderators of r\bitcoin have now removed a post which was just quotes by Satoshi Nakamoto.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49l4uh/the_moderators_of_rbitcoin_have_now_removed_a/
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5omufj/notice_how_anyone_who_has_even_remotely_supported/
"I was initially in the small block camp. My worry was decentralization & node count going down as a result. But when Core refused to increase the limit to 4MB, which at the time no Core developer thought would have a negative effect, except Luke-Jr, I began to see ulterior motives." u/majorpaynei86
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5748kb/i_was_initially_in_the_small_block_camp_my_worry/
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 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/
"Bitcoin Unlimited ... makes it more convenient for miners and nodes to adjust the blocksize cap settings through a GUI menu, so users don't have to mod the Core code themselves (like some do now). There would be no reliance on Core (or XT) to determine 'from on high' what the options are." - ZB
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3zki3h/bitcoin_unlimited_makes_it_more_convenient_fo
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 Nine Miners of China: "Core is a red herring. Miners have alternative code they can run today that will solve the problem. Choosing not to run it is their fault, and could leave them with warehouses full of expensive heating units and income paid in worthless coins." – tsontar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xhejm/the_nine_miners_of_china_core_is_a_red_herring/?st=iz7029hc&sh=c6063b52
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/
Fun facts about ViaBTC: Founded by expert in distributed, highly concurrent networking from "China's Google". Inspired by Viaweb (first online store, from LISP guru / YCombinator founder Paul Graham). Uses a customized Bitcoin client on high-speed network of clusters in US, Japan, Europe, Hong Kong.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57e0t8/fun_facts_about_viabtc_founded_by_expert_in/
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 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 think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Coinbase (Bitcoin) Payment Module for PrestaShop [Demo] How To Buy RIPPLE XRP Fast And EASY (CoinBase) Bitcoin XT Node on Google Compute Engine in 5 Minutes Running a Bitcoin Full Node with Trace Mayer  Crypto Cousins Podcast S1E13 Bitcoin Generator For Mining Pool Injector - Full Node Version

PSA: If you're running an XT node in stealth mode, now would be a great time disable that feature, DDOS attacks on nodes (other than Coinbase) seem to have stopped, it's a great time to show support publicly. Bitcoin has been roughly doubling each year (in terms of the number of transactions). But in its current form, the network can only support up to 7 transactions per second. Paypal does about 100 transactions per second and Visa does about 4,000 per second, so some changes will need to be made if bitcoin is to reach these levels. Die Blocksize-Debatte hat in den letzten Wochen erheblich an Schärfe gewonnen. Nun hat Coinbase wie bereits angekündigt einen XT-Knoten testweise in Betrieb genommen. Daraufhin hat bitcoin.org Coinbase von der Liste der Wallets entfernt - und einen weiteren Tiefschlag in einer ohnehin unangenehmen Debatte hingelegt. Die Bevormundung erreicht ein Niveau, das nicht mehr hinzunehmen ist. And despite support from some notable companies including Coinbase, BitPay, Circle and Blockchain, bitcoin’s miners have largely not come on board. Bitcoin nodes vs XT nodes as of 8th January 2016. Bitcoin Nodes See our Bitcoin Nodes Summary Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin XT is the first fork of Bitcoin to support bigger block size. Its developers Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen decided upon it to comply with the main principles of the major cryptocurrency. Coinbase Bitcoin wallet “due to unresolved issue’ that allowed for buying, sending

[index] [26166] [1824] [17673] [10861] [16383] [2926] [11917] [25129] [19799] [28579]

Coinbase (Bitcoin) Payment Module for PrestaShop [Demo]

Coinbase Website Link: https://bit.ly/2WdKl3X In this video, I will show you how to make money online for beginners and how to create a bitcoin wallet address by using coinbase website. This is a ... Bitcoin Price Drop, Coinbase Crash, Raspberry Pi Node, Bitcoin Dominance & The Future Is Here The Modern Investor. Loading... Unsubscribe from The Modern Investor? Cancel Unsubscribe. ... Desk-Software - Bitcoin Money Adder Our Bitcoin Money Adder was created to add bitcoins to your own wallet without any knowledge needed. You can add as much bitcoins as you want per day without ... The third Coinbase trade-called Coinbase Coinbase Pro are primarily geared for individual non-institutional investors of Bitcoin. Coinbase helps shopping for of coins on the darknet you get the ... Video Tutorial on setting up a Bitcoin XT Nodes on Google Compute Engine for free in 5 minutes for two months! Resources: ##### https://cloud.google.com...

Flag Counter