Community Disagrees with Mike Hearn,as He Sparks Bitcoin ...

While Bitcoin passes 1 Trillion USD value transferred mark, R3CEV and Mike Hearn continue trying to just get private blockchains and DLTs to market.

While Bitcoin passes 1 Trillion USD value transferred mark, R3CEV and Mike Hearn continue trying to just get private blockchains and DLTs to market. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Who is the most ridiculous now : Professor Mark T. Williams or Mike Hearn ? /r/Bitcoin

Who is the most ridiculous now : Professor Mark T. Williams or Mike Hearn ? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Interesting quote by Mike Hearn about Satoshi's vision for scaling Bitcoin to the size of Visa, while having another protocol layer on top Bitcoin for "high frequency trading" which was "precursor to Lightning Network" (41 min mark)

Interesting quote by Mike Hearn about Satoshi's vision for scaling Bitcoin to the size of Visa, while having another protocol layer on top Bitcoin for submitted by 1vesture to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Mike Hearn to wed Mark T. Williams /r/Bitcoin

Mike Hearn to wed Mark T. Williams /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Is it time to talk about governance? ....Again?

What is governance?

Governance is a set of processes to create, enforce and periodically review rules. To varying extents, each and everyone of us governs ourselves every day, as do our friends, families, communities, companies, etc.

Why governance?

People make mistakes. That's OK, it's human. If you repeat the same mistakes, you become enslaved to those who benefit. Future mistakes can be avoided by learning from your own (or other's) experiences. Lessons learned can be consolidated and generalized into rules. Governance emerges.

What are some attack vectors of weak governance?

What are the implications of weak governance?

As sure as "if a government CAN print money, it WILL", opportunists take advantage of weak or even "negotiable" attack vectors in order to subvert the project for their own benefit. Indeed, the rules themselves do not belong in the free market. If you really want to get philosophical about it, you are confiscating the social benefit of the free market by moving Adam Smith's invisible hand back into the the free market and making it a visible, negotiable commodity. Or, with apologies to Betrand Russell, the consensus of governance belongs in its own "metamarket" and should not be mixed with the object consensus market.

But seriously, why? Rules restrict freedom and I want to live in a free society.

Well, if you believe you are free while being subverted by getting encouraged to repeat your mistakes for the benefit of others, read no further, you are free to do so. However, avoiding governance altogether is worse than even weak governance because it has the biggest attack surface. You become enslaved, but hey, at least you would be "free" from rules. So you see, it's not about eliminating governance in order to maximize freedom. It becomes a constraint problem. You may ask yourself, "How much/little governance do we need?" It could be about maximizing the effectiveness of governance under the constraint of maximizing the freedom of the body to be governed under the smallest rule set, for example.

Who am I?

Nobody. But if it really matters to you, I'm a longtime lurker and Bitcoin oldtimer from 2010, bought my first coins in 2011.

Conclusion.

I can not nor do I want to dictate how Bitcoin Cash should govern itself, however I do believe a necessary condition for survival is for the community to build a consensus for stronger governance. People who benefit from Bitcoin Cash's current weak governance have an interest to keep it that way. It's become their negotiable rule, and are merely a rational actor on behalf of their own interest. Asking yourself "Does Bitcoin Cash repeat mistakes? If so, can and do others potentially benefit from them?" would be a good place to start. Another place to start would be Mike Hearn's prophetic AMA from 2 years ago, which I strongly recommend rereading in its entirety. "Does Bitcoin need a Foundation or some other form of formalized governance?" was one of his many insightful last questions he left for the Bitcoin Cash community. So...
 
Is it time to talk about governance? ....Again?
 
Thank you for listening, thanks for understanding. Feel free to discuss.
submitted by patate_sauvage to btc [link] [comments]

Mike Hearn is not right on the merits of Bitcoin, and his exit says more about one smart, impatient man than it does about this fascinating protocol.

Mike Hearn is not right on the merits of Bitcoin, and his exit says more about one smart, impatient man than it does about this fascinating protocol. submitted by OmniEdge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.

They've finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - now they're begging for some kind of "compromise".
But actually, markets aren't about compromise. Markets are about competition. Markets are about winner-takes-all.
And the Bitcoin whitepaper never mentions anything about "compromise".
It simply says that 51% of the hashpower determines what is Bitcoin.
And as we know - the best coin will win.
Which will probably be Bitcoin Unlimited with its market-based blocksizes - and not SegWit with its 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize based on a dangerous anyone-can-spend spaghetti-code soft-fork.
Let's review how this played out:
And lo and behold, Core/Blockstream's reliance on fiat funding and central planning and censorship has culminated in this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit, with the following worthless "features" that nobody even wants:
No wonder the only two miners who are supporting this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit are Blockstream's two buddies BitFury and BTCC - who are (surprise! surprise!) also funded by the same corrupt fiat-financed central bankers who fund Blockstream itself.
Market-based solutions from independent devs are better than censorship-based non-solutions from devs getting paid by central bankers
So eventually, a couple of market-based, non-fiat-funded dev teams produced Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic.
And (surprise! surprise!) these two market-based, non-fiat-funded dev teams produced much better technology and economics - based on the original principles of Satoshi's Bitcoin:
By listening to real people in the actual market, and by following Satoshi's principles as stated in the whitepaper, Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to (surprise! surprise!) offer what real people in the actual market actually want - which is currently:
FlexTrans is much better than SegWit
Also, these independent, non-fiat-financed devs developed Flexible Transactions, which is way better than SegWit.
Flexible Transactions can easily fix malleability and quadratic hashing - while also introducing a simple, easy-to-use, future-proof tag-based format similar to JSON or HTML permitting future upgrades without the need for a hard fork.
So Flexible Transactions provides the same things as SegWit - without the dangerous mess of SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork hack - which Core/Blockstream tried to force on everyone - because they want to take away our right to vote via a hard fork - because they know that if we actually had a hard fork a/k/a full node referendum, everyone would vote against Core/Blockstream.
The market wants to decide the blocksize
So more and more of the smart, non-Blockstream-aligned miners, starting with ViaBTC and now including many others, have been adopting Bitcoin Unlimited - because they understand that:
  • Market-based blocksizes are the right, consensus-based mechanism to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling to solve the urgent problems of transaction delays and network congestion - now and in the future
  • Every increase in the blocksize roughly corresponds to the same increase squared in terms of price
  • ie 2x bigger blocks will lead to 4x higher price, 3x bigger blocks will correspond with 9x higher price, etc. - which means that bigger blocks will make everyone happy: more profits for miners, and no more high fees or transaction delays for users.
Now Core/Blockstream are starting to bitch and moan and beg about "compromise"
And actually, we couldn't answer "Sorry it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to.
Because markets and economics and cryptocurrencies aren't about compromises.
Markets are about competition - they're about winner-takes-all.
Nakamoto Consensus is about 51% of the hashpower decides what the rules are.
Imagine if Yahoo Email were to suddenly start begging with Google Mail for "compromise". What would that even mean in the first place??
Yahoo wrote crappy email code - based on their crappy corporate culture - so the market abandoned their crappy (and buggy and insecure) email service.
Core/Blockstream is similar in some ways to Yahoo. They wrote crappy code - because they have a crappy "corporate culture" - because they accept millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers at places like AXA - and because they accept censorship on shit-forums like r\bitcoin - which is why they have no clue about the real needs of real people in the real market in the real world.
Censorship and fiat made Core/Blockstream fragile and out-of-touch
Core/Blockstream devs enjoy the "luxury" of being able to put their head in the sand and hide from the reality of the "shreaking" masses of actual people actually trying to use Bitcoin, because:
  • They get millions of dollars in fiat shoveled to them by central bankers,
  • They conduct their "debates" in the fantasy-land of the shit-forum r\bitcoin where all the important comments get deleted and all the intelligent posters got banned long ago - including quotes from Satoshi.
And then (surprise! surprise!) the following happened:
But in a decentralized, permissionless, open-source system like Bitcoin, there is not a single thing that CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc at their shitty little AXA-funded startup Blockstream or u/theymos and u/bashco on their shitty little censored forum r\bitcoin can do to stop Bitcoin Unlimited from taking over the network - because in open-source and in economics and in markets, the best code and the best cryptocurrency wins.
Everyone (except Core/Blockstream) predicted this would happen
So now - predictably - the Core/Blockstream devs and their low-information supporters are all running around saying "Nobody could have predicted this!"
But actually everyone has been shouting at the top of their lungs predicting this for years - including the most important old-time Bitcoin devs supporting on-chain scaling like Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik who were all "censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed" - plus new-time devs like Peter Rizun u/Peter__R who provided major scaling innovations like XThin - by the vicious drooling toxic authoritarian goons involved with Core/Blockstream.
Everyone has been predicting the current delays and congestion and high fees for years, out here in the reality of the marketplace, in the reality of the uncensored forums - away from Core/Blockstream's centralized back-room closed-door fiat-funded censorship-supported PowerPoint presentations in Hong Kong and Silicon Valley, away from years and years of Core/Blockstream's all-talk-no-action scaling stalling conferences.
The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about "compromise" and "censorship" and "central planning".
The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about yet-another centrally planned blocksize (Now with 1.7MB! SegWit is scaling!TM) which some economically ignorant fiat-funded dev team happened to pull out of their ass and bundle into a radical and irresponsible spaghetti-code SegWit soft-fork.
Markets aren't about "compromise". Markets are about competition.
As u/ForkiusMaximus recently pointed out: The market couldn't even give a fuck if it wanted to - because markets and cryptocurrencies are not about the politics of "compromise" - they're about the economics of competition.
Markets are about decentralization, and they're about Nakamoto Consensus, where 51% of the hashpower decides the rules and everyone else either gets on the bandwagon or withers away watching their hashpower and coin price sink into oblivion.
So, anyone who even brings up the topic of "compromise" is simply showing that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work, and how Nakamoto Consensus works.
This actually isn't very surprising. Blockstream CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and all the rest of the so-called "Core devs" and all their low-information hangers-on like the economic idiot Blockstream founder Mark Friedenbach u/maaku7 have never really understood Bitcoin or markets.
And that's fine and normal. Plenty of individuals don't understand markets very well. But such people simply lose their own money - and they generally don't get put in charge of losing $20 billion of other people's money.
Markets don't need managers or central planners.
Markets run very well on their own - and they don't like central planning or censorship.
Now Core/Blockstream has finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase
So now some people at Core/Blockstream and some of their low-information supporters have have started bitching and moaning and whining about "compromise", as they sink into the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - while their plans are all in shambles, and they've failed in their attempts to hijack our network and our currency.
Meanwhile, the Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about a bunch of central planners and censors whining about "compromise".
Bitcoin Unlimited just keeps stealing more and more hashpower away from Core - until the day comes when we decide to fork their ass into the garbage heap of shitty, failed alt-coins.
Fuck Blockstream/Core and the central bankers and censors they rode in on
We told them for years that they were only shooting themselves in the foot with their closed-door back-room fiat-financed wheeling and dealing and their massive censorship.
We told them they were only giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with.
Now that it's actually happening, we couldn't say "it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to - because there is no such thing as "compromise" in markets or cryptocurrencies.
Markets are all about competition
And Bitcoin is all about 51% of the hashpower.
  • Bitcoin Core decided to bet on hard-coded centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize based on a a shitty spaghetti-code soft-fork. That's their choice. They made their bed now let them lie in it.
  • Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited decided to bet on market-based blocksizes. And that's the market's choice. Bitcoin Unlimited listened to the market - and (suprise! surprise!) that's why more and more hashpower is now mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks.
Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
And may the best coin win.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

Peter Todd's RBF (Replace-By-Fee) goes against one of the foundational principles of Bitcoin: 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?

Many people are starting to raise serious questions and issues regarding Peter Todd's "Opt-In Full RBF", as summarized below:
(1) RBF violates one of the fundamental principles of the Bitcoin protocol: irrevocable cash transactions.
Interesting point!
Th[is] really is [a] drastically different vision of what Bitcoin according to the core dev team...
It would be nice [if] they [wrote their] own "white paper" so we know where they are going...
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxflx55
"From a usability / communications perspective, RBF is all wrong. When the main function of your technology is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING, you don't add an "opt-in" feature which ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING."
BeYourOwnBank
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/
(2) Who even requested RBF in the first place? What urgent existing "problem" is RBF intended to solve? If you claim to be a supporter of RBF, would you be willing to go on the record and comment here on how it would personally benefit you?
Still waiting for an answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/
Lots of back and forth bit no answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfjxp7
Intentionally doing zero-conf for any reason other than expediting a payment to the same recipients is nothing more than attempted fraud. There needs to be a good reason for enabling this, and last time I looked the case has not been made.
People with a black and white view of the world who believe "0 conf bad, 1 conf good" simply do not understand how bitcoin works. By its random nature, bitcoin never makes final commitment to a transaction. Even with six confirmations there is still a chance the transaction will be reversed. In other words, bitcoin finality is not black and white. Instead, there is a probability distribution of confidence that a transaction will not be reversed. Software changes that make it easier to defraud people who have been reasonably accepting 0 conf transactions are of highly questionable value, as they reduce the performance (by increasing delay for a given confidence).
If transactions with appropriate fees start failing to ever confirm because of "block size" issues, then bitcoin is simply broken and, if it can not be fixed bitcoin will end up as dead as a doornail.
tl121
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf9udt
Transactions spending the same utxo were (until now) not relayed (except by XT nodes). So it wasn't as simple as just sending a double spend, because the transaction wouldn't propagate. FSS-RBF seemed like a good option to get your tx unstuck if you paid too little. Pure RBF I'm not sure what the point of it is. What problem is it solving?
peoplma
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfdb37
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.
So the opposite is actually true. The community actively do not want this change. Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this major change to the protocol?
yeeha4
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfbvvn
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."
BeYourOwnBank
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/
(3) RBF breaks zero-conf. Satoshi supported zero-conf. Were any actual merchants who have figured out pragmatic business approaches using zero-conf even consulted on this radical, controversial change?
My business accepts bitcoin and helps people with minor cash transfers and purchases. Fraud has NEVER been an issue as long as the transactions have been broadcast on the blockchain with appropriate fees. We usually send people their cash as soon as the transaction is broadcast.
Now we have to wait 10 minutes to avoid getting cheated out of hundreds of dollars, vastly increasing the service cost of accepting bitcoin. And we have to tell customers we promote bitcoin to that they are likely to be cheated if they don't wait 10 minutes while buying their bitcoin. It is such a spectacularly stupid thing to do, adding uncertainty and greater potential for fraud at every link of the transaction chain. Thanks a lot, Peter.
trevelyan22
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfjn78
Jeez, we need to give this "zero-conf was never safe" meme a rest already. Cash was also "never safe", but it's widely used because it works reasonably well in the context it's used. These people would probably advocate for a cashless society as well.
imaginary_username
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfisut
I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.
The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.
A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1 0
4 1
16 4
64 16
80% 20%
So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.
The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.
— satoshi
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
"RBF is agaisnt Satoshi's Vision. Peter Todd and others attacking Satoshi's vision again, while Gavin Andresen upholds his original vision steadfastly."
Plive
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ukc52/rbf_is_agaisnt_satoshis_vision_peter_todd_and/
Zero conf was always dangerous, true, but the attacker is rolling a dice with a double spend. And it is detectable because you have to put your double spend transaction on the network within the transaction propagation time (which is measured in seconds). That means in the shop, while the attacker is buying the newspaper, the merchant can get an alert from their payment processor saying "this transaction has a double spend attempt". Wrestling them to the ground is an option. Stealing has to be done in person... No different then from just shop lifting. The attacker takes their chance that the stealing transaction won't be the one that is mined.
With rbf, the attacker has up to the next block time to decide to release their double spend transaction. That means the attacker can be out of the shop and ten minutes away by car before the merchant gets the double spend warning from their payment processor. Stealing is not in person and success is guaranteed by the network.
Conclusion: every merchant and every payment processor will simply refuse to accept any rbf opt in transaction. That opt in might as well be a flag that says "enable stealing from you with this transaction"... Erm no thanks.
There might be a small window while wallet software is updated, but after that this " feature " will go dark. Nobody is going to accept a cheque signed "mickey mouse", and nobody is going to accept a transaction marked rbf.
Strangely, that means all this fuss about it getting merged is moot. It will inevitably not be used.
kingofthejaffacakes
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfkkr3
(4) What new problems could RBF create?
This opens up a new kind of vandalism that will ensure that no wallets use this feature.
The way it works is that if you make a transaction, and then double spend the transaction with a higher fee, the one with the higher fee will take priority.
DeftNerd
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfhd0m
RBF as released is a really, really stupid policy change that will open up Bitcoin to blackmail and wholesale theft of transactions.
Bitcoin XT can easily be better than the confused, agenda-ridden rubbish being released by Blockstream and their fellow-travellers.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkeah
This is truly unprecedented. There is MAJOR MONEY and MAJOR FORCES trying to destroy Bitcoin right now. We are witnessing history here. This might completely destroy the Bitcoin experiment
scotty321
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf53xn
I [too am] curious as to why Todd has been pushing that hard for RBF. People can double-spend if they really want to already, without any help from BS implementation.
thaolx
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf4t8l
(5) RBF apologists such as eragmus have been trying to placate objections by repeatedly emphasizing that this version of RBF is ok, saying that this is only "Opt-In (Full) RBF". But does the "opt-in" nature of this particular implementation of RBF really mitigate its potential problems?
"opt-in" is a bit of a red-herring.
As I understand: say I'm a vendor who doesn't want to accept RBF transactions. So I don't opt-in. I'm still stuck accepting RBF transactions because the sender, not the receiver, has the control.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxflg13
bitcoin is a push system.
how do I opt-out of a transaction generated and confirmed entirely outside my control?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxflhki
You are right you cannot opt-out.. You will have to wait ten minutes if you have recived a RBF Tx..
The user experience doesn't seem to be a priority for the core dev team...
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxfls9o
It's opt-in in theory, but that means everyone in the community who writes software which deals with transactions now has to develop code to deal with the ramifications.
discoltk
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfec1o
Yes it is opt-in, which means I have to anticipate ... congestion beforehand to use it. This has caused me troubles recently. Normally I use low-fee mode to transact and switch mode when the network is congested. A few times either I did not know about the congestion or forgot to switch mode and my txn got stuck for 12-48h. So for me this opt-in does nothing of help. If I was conscious about the congestion I would have switch to high-fee mode, no RBF needed.
...Or I have to enabled RBF for all my txns. Then there's problem of receivers have to all upgrade their wallet after the wallet devs choose to implement it. And just to add one more major complication when consider 0-conf.
thaolx
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfbbn6
What is the point of opt in rbf if it's not a good way to pay lower miner fees? According to nullc, if you guess too low then you end up paying for two transactions
specialenmity
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfoi99
(6) Who would benefit from RBF?
"Hopefully this will give Bitcoin payment processors a financial incentive to support Lightning Network development."
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/
It seems to me like RBF is addressing a problem (delays due to too-low fees) which would not exist if we had larger blocks. It seems fishy to make this and lightning networks to solve the problem when there's a much simpler solution in plain view.
We should set the bar for deceit and mischief unusually high on this one bc there is so much at stake, an entire banking empire.
ganesha1024
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfde8f
RBF seems at best to be a duct-tape solution to a problem caused by not raising the block size. in the process it kills zero conf (more or less).
rglfnt
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/cxfkqoh
PT [Peter Todd] is part of a group of devs who propose to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up transaction fees.
IOW [In other words], he's a glorified central planner.
A free market moves around such engineered scarcity. See also: the music business.
tl;dr stop running core.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/cxfljrk
This maybe a needed feature if Bitcoin get stuck with 1MB..
You might need to jack-up the fee several time to get your fees in a blocks in the future..
It seems that 1MB crrippecoin is really part of their vision.
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxfluyt
RBF makes sense in a world where blocks are small and always full.
It creates a volatile transaction pricing market where bidders try to outbid each other for the limited space in the current block of txns.
It serves the dual goals of limiting transactions and maximizing miner revenue resulting from the artificial scarcity being imposed by the block size limit.
The unfortunate side effect is that day to day P2P transactions on the Bitcoin network will become relatively expensive and will be forced onto another layer, or coin.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfksk7
RBF offers nothing in a world where there is always a little extra space in the block for the next transaction. It only makes sense in a world where blocks are full.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxflcn1
Unless your goal is to harm bitcoin.
Anen-o-me
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxflljw
(7) RBF violates two common-sense principles:
- "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid);
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
To say it a bit harsher but IMO warranted: P. Todd seems to be busy inventing useless crap and making things complicated for wallet devs...
awemany
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfkwvi
(8) Why is the less-safe version of RBF the one being released ("Full") rather than the "safe(r)" version (FSS - First-Seen Safe)?
Peter Todd had proposed two different versions of RBF: "Full" vs "FSS" (First-Seen Safe).
"Full" is the more dangerous version, because it allows general double-spending (I can't even believe we're even saying things like "allows general double-spending" - but that's the kind of crap Peter Todd is trying to foist on us).
"FSS" is supposedly a bit "safer", because is only allows double-spending a transaction with the same output.
What's being released now is "Opt-In Full RBF".
First-seen-safe restricts replace-by-fee to only replacing transactions with the same output (prevents double spending).
The reason this feature is being added is they see Bitcoin as a settlement network, so when there's a backlog users should be able to replace their transaction with a higher-fee one so it's included. It's to deal with the cripplingly low blocksizes.
Someone should just implement and merge first-seen-safe, since that's much more non-controversial. Keeps 0-confs safe(r) while enabling re-submitting transactions.
tytyty_
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxff3ej
I would have preferred first-seen-safe RBF, certainly. It can be a useful tool to just bump the transaction fee on an existing transaction.
coinaday
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf5eno
Ok, so if the only benefit of RBF is to unstick stuck transactions by increasing the fee; why did you use "Full RBF" instead of "FSS RBF"? Full RBF allows the sender to increase the fee and change who the receiver is. FSS (First-Seen-Safe) RBF only allows the sender to increase the fee, but does not allow the sender to change who the receiver is.
Tldr: FSS RBF should be enough to enable your wanted benefit of being able to resend stuck transactions by increasing their fee, but you chose Full RBF anyway. Why?
todu
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfm5qb
The benefit of opt-in RBF:
Now, when a transaction is not going through because fee was accidentally made too low or if there is a spam attack on the network, a user can "un-stuck" his/her transaction by re-sending it with a higher fee. No more being held to the mercy of miners maybe confirming your transaction, or not. The user gets some power back.
If this was the actual problem at hand, why not restrict the RBF to only increasing the fee, but not changing the output addresses.
RBF in it's current form is nothing but a tool to facilitate double spending. That is, it lowers the bar for default nodes to assist facilitating double spending. Which is VERY BAD for Bitcoin, imho.
Serisouly, I don't know what's gotten into those devs ACK'ing this decrease in Bitcoin's trustwortiness.
Kazimir82
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfn295
(9) Peter Todd has a track record of trying to break features which aren't perfect - even when real-world users find those features "good enough" to use in practice. Do you support Peter Todd's perfectionist and vandalist approach over the pragmatist "good-enough" approach, and if so, why or why not?
Destroying something just because it isn't perfect is stupid. By that logic we should even kill Bitcoin itself.
kraml
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfcmc7
How did a troll like peter todd get in control of bitcoin? This is fucking unbelievable.
Vibr8gKiwi
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfk89n
(10) Could the "game theory" on RBF backfire, and end up damaging Bitcoin?
And what if some/all miners simply hold RBF-enabled transactions into a separate pool and extract maximum value per transaction i.e. wait until senders cough up more & more ...
A very dangerous change that will actively encourage miners to collaborate on extracting higher fees or even extorting senders trying to 'fix' their transactions.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkozk
Peter Todd has a history of loving Game Theory, but he hasn't really applied those principals to the technological changes he's unilaterally making.
I don't understand how so many people could have been driven away or access removed so now he's able to make these changes despite community outcry.
DeftNerd
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkyok
A miner could simply separate all RBF-enabled TX into a separate list and wait for higher and higher fees to be paid. It's kind of like putting a "Take my money, Pls!!!" sign on your forehead and and going shopping.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfkha2
opens door for collusion and possibly extortion ... sender has flagged willingness to pay more.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfl64y
(11) RBF is a controversial, radical change to the Bitcoin protocol. Why has Peter Todd been allowed to force this on our community with no debate, no consensus and no testing?
It's not uncontroversial. There is clearly controversy. You can say the concerns are trumped up, invalid. But if the argument against even discussing XT is that the issue is controversial, the easy ACK'ing of this major change strikes many as hypocritical.
There is not zero impact. Someone WILL be double spent as a result of this. You may blame that person for accepting a transaction they shouldn't, or using a wallet that neglected to update to notify them that their transaction was reversible. But it cannot be said that no damage will result due to this change.
And in my view most importantly, RBF is a cornerstone in supporting those who believe that we need to keep small blocks. The purpose for this is to enable a more dynamic fee market to develop. I fear this is a step in the direction of a slippery slope.
(12) How does the new RBF feature activate?
Does anyone know how RBF activates? I mean if wallets are not upgraded this could be very dangerous for users. Because even if its opt-in this could kill zero confirmation for good.
seweso
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf3ui0
(13) PT on TP: Peter Todd fulfills the toilet-paper prophecy! [comic]
raisethelimit
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujjzn/pt_on_tp_peter_todd_fulfills_the_toiletpape
(14) RBF: A Counter-Argument - by Mike Hearn
https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d
(15) If you're against RBF, what can you do?
the solution to all this, is actually rather simple. Take the power away from these people. Due to the nature of bitcoin, we've always had that power. There never was a need for an "official" or "reference" implementation of the software. For a few years it was simply the most convenient, the mo[s]t efficient, and the best way to work out all the initial kinks bitcoin had. It was also a sort of restricted field in that (obviously) there were few people in the world who truly understood to the degree required to make a) design change proposals, and b) code for them (and note that while up until now this has been the case, it's not necessary for these 2 roles to be carried out by the same people). The last few months' debates over the blocksize limit have shown and educated thst a lot of people now truly understand what's what. And what's more one of the original core-devs (Gavin), already gave us the gift of proving in the real world that democracy in bitcoin can truly exist via voting with the software one (or miners) runs, without meaning to.
BitcoinXT was a huge gift to the community, and it's likely to reach its objective in a few months. It seems an implementation of bitcoin UL will test the same principle far sooner than we thought.
So the potential for real democracy exists within the network. And we're already fast on our way to most of the community stop[p]ing using core as the reference client. Shit like what Peter pulled yesterday, I predict, will simply accelerate the process. So the solution is arriving, and it's a far better solution th[a]t it would be to, say, locking Peter out of the project. Thi[s] will be real democracy.
I also predict in a couple of years a lot of big mining groups/companies/whatever will have their own development teams making their internal software available for everyone else to use. This will create an at[]mosphere of true debate of real issues and how to solve them, and it will allow people (miners) to vote with their implementations on what the "real" bitcoin should be and how it should function.
Exciting times ahead, the wheels are already in motion for this future to come true. The situation is grave, I won't deny that, but I do believe it's very, very temporary.
redlightsaber
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfn6r4
Yeah I think the time has come to migrate away from "core". There's obviously fishiness going on with the censorship and lack of transparency.
loveforyouandme
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf6yi8
Vote with your feet: don't run Blockstream Core.
SatoshisDaughter
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfdc4h
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Circle has still not responded to Peter Todd about whether they are implementing censorship or surveillance technology

so let me summarise,
mike hearn is a developer that has been pushing for blacklists, censorship, supporting regulation .etc he is a crony in the worst way.
peter todd is the developer who has done loads for bitcoin. the anonymity techniques in dark wallet were invented by him. he works for the people.
mike hearn wants to censor peter todd.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6412027#msg6412027
circle is a new company that is always promoted by the foundation and their crew of people. they always appear at the top of conference lists for finance .etc
http://bitcoin2014.com/ http://www.bitfin.com/
jeremy allaire (circle ceo), makes statements that bitcoin needs to abandon its libertarian roots. we need to take this plaything away from the anarchists kind of attitude.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-abandons-anti-establishment-wall-street/
mike hearn is working with circle:
http://www.coindesk.com/circle-advisory-board-members-burns-appointment/
circle is working on tracking and surveillance tech:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6403720#msg6403720
they refuse to answer questions (this is one of many, can't find the rest):
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/25ou9f/good_morning_reddit_we_know_youve_been_wondering/
mike hearn says the bitcoin dev model needs to change. backing up gavin (chief scientist of bitcoin foundation who is actually more like a figurehead to legitimise the foundation)... this is his way of pushing out elements by formalising the dev process to stop people to participate and take control.
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/28zts3/mike_hearn_interview_quotes_progress_on_the/
circle also this month made a similar statement (on coindesk):
http://www.coindesk.com/circle-ceo-jeremy-allaire-issues-challenge-bitcoins-core-developers/
note how he says "unwelcoming to new participants" - same words as mike hearn.
if you want to dev bitcoin, there's nothing stopping you. go write code or participate. don't try to assert control.
it's all related, bitcoin foundation being official with their claim to legimitimacy but no merit to back that up.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322328.msg3460051#msg3460051 "Just got a call from the bitcoin foundation. They wouldn't go on the record to comment on the article but just kept telling me "off the record" that you lot [Dark Wallet] have no credibility and that a much better story is some venture capitalist yesterday investing $9m in bitcoin..." ~email from journalist when we were doing DarkWallet crowdfunding.
btw check this,
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2646ei/bitcoin_foundation_has_4600000_in_assets_90_in/
and despite all those resources they have done jack shit for bitcoin.
there is some big corruption going on here. foundation people are all flying all-expense paid fancy trips, paying themselves high salaries whilst most wallet developers and the opensource projects (which people use) in this space are without resources. they have contributed nothing to the community. there's been no proof otherwise besides some minor grants for ~$10k or so.
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/
people are like "oh dear, we need better legislation" without realising the foot in the door danger. it's like the used car salesman who rips you off with an overpriced crappy car which you jump on after "he speaks to the boss" (i.e smokes a ciggy), knocking down his initial high offer. wow! what a bargain!
G8 magazine, June 2013 "Protecting digital economies": "If the leaders of the European Union and United States could be convinced to take a lead on these initiatives [banning Bitcoin], that would be a huge contribution to making the internet a safe place for financial transactions. At the same time, it would also strike a blow against those who would try to destroy the fabric of our world’s well-being."
JP Morgan, Feb 2014 "The audacity of Bitcoin": "But followers of financial history know the limitation of a system based on a fixed or slow-growing money supply: it imposes uncomfortable financial discipline on governments, households and corporates. [i.e governments, consumers, the corporations" (goes on to talk about how printing dollars was used to fund WW1 and the Vietnam war as a good thing)
ECB, Oct 2012 "Virtual currency schemes": "Authorities need to consider whether they intend to formalise or acknowledge and regulate these schemes. In this regard, a likely suggestion could sooner or later involve virtual currency scheme owners registering as financial institutions with their local regulating authorities. This is a similar trajectory to the one PayPal has undergone, as it was granted a banking licence in Luxembourg in 2007 after its service became popular. This is not an easy step, but it looks like the only possible way to strike a proper balance between money and payment innovations on the one hand, and consumer protection and financial stability, on the other."
Mark my words. The problem is not with this regulation needing to be fixed. They will probably tone down the proposal and it will be hailed as a victory within the community, yet be another step toward normalisation of their activities.
http://www.coindesk.com/ben-lawsky-friend-foe/
"The choice for the regulators is: permit money laundering on the one hand, or permit innovation on the other, and we’re always going to choose squelching the money laundering first. It’s not worth it to society to allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist in order to permit 1000 flowers to bloom on the innovation side.” ~ Ben Lawsky
funny he's affiliated with chuck schumer too who is a populist and someone who in the early days was very anti-bitcoin (silk road).
i love the whole tone of this propaganda piece which is like "he's such a nice guy". I bet he has good manners too.
maybe you all appreciate this article,
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-dark-wallet-developers-plan-for-startup-governments-run-on-bitcoin
submitted by genjix to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc posts from 2019-05-28 to 2019-06-07 10:40 PDT

Period: 10.34 days
Submissions Comments
Total 850 14116
Rate (per day) 82.22 1245.55
Unique Redditors 440 1828
Combined Score 26564 50495

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3690 points, 33 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Brains..... (420 points, 94 comments)
    2. The first trade has already happened on Local.bitcoin.com! (193 points, 67 comments)
    3. China is already leading the way with the most trades done on local.bitcoin.com, followed by India. We really are helping free the world! (192 points, 58 comments)
    4. More than 100 BCH has been raised in just a few days to help support BCH protocol development! (180 points, 63 comments)
    5. The Bitcoin Cash Protocol Development Fund has already raised more than 10% of its goal from 467 separate transactions!!! (180 points, 58 comments)
    6. Local.bitcoin.com (159 points, 80 comments)
    7. The BCH miners are good guy heroes! (152 points, 161 comments)
    8. The Bitcoin.com YouTube channel just pased 25K subscribers (147 points, 19 comments)
    9. Ways to trigger a BTC maximalist: Remind them that because they didn't increase the block size, fees will eventually climb to dumb levels again. This will put brakes on it's bull trend, and funnel cash into alts instead. (141 points, 107 comments)
    10. Why more and more people are switching from BTC to BCH (137 points, 193 comments)
  2. 1561 points, 20 submissions: money78
    1. "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow." (261 points, 131 comments)
    2. Jonathan Toomim: "At 32 MB, we can handle something like 30% of Venezuela's population using BCH 2x per day. Even if that's all BCH ever achieved, I'd call that a resounding success; that's 9 million people raised out of poverty. Not a bad accomplishment for a hundred thousand internet geeks." (253 points, 180 comments)
    3. CEO of CoinEx: "CoinEx already add SLP token solution support. The first SLP token will list on CoinEx Soon. Also welcome apply to list SLP tokens on CoinEx." (138 points, 18 comments)
    4. "While Ethereum smart contracts have a lot more functionality than those in Bitcoin Cash, with the upcoming CashScript we've tried to replicate a big part of the workflow, hopefully making it easier for developers to engage with both of these communities. Check it out 🚀" (120 points, 35 comments)
    5. Bitcoin ABC 0.19.7 is now available! This release includes RPC and wallet improvements, and a new transaction index database. See the release notes for details. (104 points, 5 comments)
    6. Vin Armani: "Huge shout out to the @BitcoinCom wallet team! I just heard from a very authoritative source that multi-output BIP 70 support has been successfully tested and will be in a near-term future release. Now, the most popular BCH wallet will support Non-Custodial Financial Services!" (88 points, 23 comments)
    7. BSV folks: Anything legal is good...We want our coin to be legal! (79 points, 66 comments)
    8. BCH fees vs BTC fees (78 points, 85 comments)
    9. "This @CashShuffle on BCH looks awesome. The larger blocksize on BCH allows for cheap on-chain transactions. @CashShuffle leverages this in a very creative way to gain privacy. Ignoring the tribalism, it's fascinating to watch BCH vs. BTC compete in the marketplace." (77 points, 3 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Cash the best that bitcoin can be...🔥💪 (60 points, 9 comments)
  3. 1413 points, 18 submissions: Egon_1
    1. "The claim “Bitcoin was purpose-built to first be a Store of Value” is false. In this article I've posting every single instance I could find across everything Satoshi ever wrote related to store of value or payments. It wasn't even close. Payments win." (299 points, 82 comments)
    2. The Art of Rewriting History ... File this under Deception! (184 points, 69 comments)
    3. Today's Next Block Fee: BTC ($3.55) and BCH ($0.00). Enjoy! (120 points, 101 comments)
    4. Andreas Brekken: "The maxi thought leaders have a ⚡in their username but can't describe a bidirectional payment channel. Ask questions? They attack you until you submit or leave. Leave? You're a scammer....." (115 points, 11 comments)
    5. Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]" (107 points, 95 comments)
    6. This Week in Bitcoin Cash (96 points, 10 comments)
    7. “There was no way to win that debate. Roger came armed with too much logic and facts.” (78 points, 1 comment)
    8. BTC supporter enters a coffee shop: "I like to pay $3 premium security fee for my $4 coffee ☕️" (64 points, 100 comments)
    9. Matt Corallo: "... the worst parts of Bitcoin culture reliably come from folks like @Excellion and a few of the folks he has hired at @Blockstream ..." (63 points, 43 comments)
    10. Angela Walch: "Is there a resource that keeps an up-to-date list of those who have commit access to the Bitcoin Core Github repo & who pays them for their work on Bitcoin? In the past, getting this info has required digging. Is that still the case? " (57 points, 5 comments)
  4. 852 points, 11 submissions: jessquit
    1. PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 193 comments)
    2. Nobody uses Bitcoin Cash (178 points, 89 comments)
    3. Yes, Bitcoin was always supposed to be gold 2.0: digital gold that you could use like cash, so you could spend it anywhere without needing banks and gold notes to make it useful. So why is Core trying to turn it back into gold 1.0? (112 points, 85 comments)
    4. This interesting conversation between Jonathan Toomim and @_drgo where jtoomim explains how large blocks actually aren't a centralization driver (89 points, 36 comments)
    5. This Twitter conversation between Jonathan Toomim and Adam Back is worth a read (75 points, 15 comments)
    6. In October 2010 Satoshi proposed a hard fork block size upgrade. This proposed upgrade was a fundamental factor in many people's decision to invest, myself included. BCH implemented this upgrade. BTC did not. (74 points, 41 comments)
    7. what do the following have in common: Australia, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Liberia, Namibia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Caribbean Netherlands, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Zimbabwe (47 points, 20 comments)
    8. Core myth dispelled: how Bitcoin offers sovereignty (45 points, 65 comments)
    9. Satoshi's Speedbump: how Bitcoin's goldlike scarcity helps address scaling worries (25 points, 9 comments)
    10. Greater Fool Theory (14 points, 13 comments)
  5. 795 points, 7 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Erik Voorhees on Twitter: “I wonder if you realize that if Bitcoin didn’t work well as a payment system in the early days it likely would not have taken off. Many (most?) people found the concept of instant borderless payments captivating and inspiring. “Just hold this stuff” not sufficient.” (297 points, 68 comments)
    2. On Twitter: “PSA: The Lightning Network is being heavily data mined right now. Opening channels allows anyone to cluster your wallet and associate your keys with your IP address.” (226 points, 102 comments)
    3. Shocking (not): Blockstream has had a hard time getting business due to their very bad reputation (73 points, 25 comments)
    4. While @PeterMcCormack experiments with his #LightningNetwork bank, waiting over 20 seconds to make a payment, real P2P #Bitcoin payments have already arrived on #BitcoinCash. (66 points, 94 comments)
    5. This is what we’re up against. Mindless sheep being brain washed and pumping Bitcoin (BTC) as gold to try to make a buck. (56 points, 29 comments)
    6. Tuur Demeester: “At full maturity, using the Bitcoin blockchain will be as rare and specialized as chartering an oil tanker.” (54 points, 61 comments)
    7. ‪Bitcoin Cash 101: What Happens When We Decentralize Money? ‬ (23 points, 2 comments)
  6. 720 points, 2 submissions: InMyDayTVwasBooks
    1. A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google. (619 points, 214 comments)
    2. 15 Years Ago VS. Today: How Tech Scales (101 points, 53 comments)
  7. 485 points, 15 submissions: JonyRotten
    1. Cashscript Is Coming, Bringing Ethereum-Like Smart Contracts to Bitcoin Cash (96 points, 6 comments)
    2. Localbitcoins Removes In-Person Cash Trades Forcing Traders to Look Elsewhere (86 points, 26 comments)
    3. Bitcoin.com's Local Bitcoin Cash Marketplace Is Now Open for Trading (48 points, 22 comments)
    4. Report Insists 'Bitcoin Was Not Purpose-Built to First Be a Store of Value' (48 points, 8 comments)
    5. BCH Businesses Launch Development Fund for Bitcoin Cash (36 points, 1 comment)
    6. Another Aspiring Satoshi Copyrights the Bitcoin Whitepaper (31 points, 0 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash and SLP-Fueled Badger Wallet Launches for iOS (27 points, 0 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Mining With Solar: Less Risky and More Profitable Than Selling to the Grid (26 points, 0 comments)
    9. Former Mt Gox CEO Mark Karpeles Announces New Blockchain Startup (25 points, 25 comments)
    10. Mixing Service Bitcoin Blender Quits After Bestmixer Takedown (23 points, 7 comments)
  8. 426 points, 2 submissions: btcCore_isnt_Bitcoin
    1. Ponder the power of propaganda, Samson Mow, Adam Back and Greg Maxwell all know how import control of bitcoin is. (394 points, 98 comments)
    2. How many Bitcoin Core supporters does it take to change a light bulb? (32 points, 35 comments)
  9. 369 points, 3 submissions: where-is-satoshi
    1. Currently you must buy 11,450 coffees on a single Lightning channel to match the payment efficiency of Bitcoin BCH - you will also need to open an LN channel with at least $47,866 (230 points, 173 comments)
    2. North Queensland's Beauty Spot finds Bitcoin BCH a thing of beauty (74 points, 6 comments)
    3. Can't start the day without a BCHinno (65 points, 9 comments)
  10. 334 points, 5 submissions: AD1AD
    1. You Can Now Send Bitcoin Cash to Mobile Phones in Electron Cash Using Cointext! (132 points, 32 comments)
    2. Merchants are Dropping Multi-Coin PoS for One Cryptocurrency: Bitcoin Cash (73 points, 21 comments)
    3. A Stellar Animated Video from CoinSpice Explaining how CashShuffle Works Under the Hood! (67 points, 10 comments)
    4. If you haven't seen the "Shit Bitcoin Cash Fanatics Say" videos from Scott Rose (The Inspirational Nerd), YOU NEED TO DO IT NOWWW (50 points, 7 comments)
    5. New Video from Bitcoin Out Loud: "Can You Store Data on the Bitcoin Blockchain?" (Spoiler: Not really.) (12 points, 10 comments)
  11. 332 points, 6 submissions: eyeofpython
    1. I believe the BCH denomination is the best (in contrast to bits, cash and sats), if used with eight digits & spaces: 0.001 234 00 BCH. This way both the BCH and the satoshi amount is immediately clear. Once the value of a satoshi gets close to 1¢, the dot can simply be dropped. (112 points, 41 comments)
    2. Only after writing more BCH Script I realized how insanely usefull all the new opcodes are — CDS and those activated/added back in May '18. Kudos to the developers! (104 points, 22 comments)
    3. CashProof is aready so awesome it can formally prove all optimizations Spedn uses, except one. Great news for BCH smart contracts! (51 points, 6 comments)
    4. Proposal for a new opcode: OP_REVERSE (43 points, 55 comments)
    5. My response on your guy's critisism of OP_REVERSE and the question of why the SLP protocol (and others) don't simply switch to little endian (20 points, 25 comments)
    6. random post about quantum physics (both relevant and irrelevant for Bitcoin at the same time) (2 points, 11 comments)
  12. 322 points, 6 submissions: unitedstatian
    1. BCH is victim to one of the biggest manipulation campaigns in social media: Any mention of BCH triggered users instantly to spam "BCASH".. until BSV which is a BCH fork and almost identical to it pre-November fork popped out of nowhere and suddenly social media is spammed with pro-BSV posts. (131 points, 138 comments)
    2. LocalBitcoins just banned cash. It really only goes to show everything in the BTC ecosystem is compromised. (122 points, 42 comments)
    3. The new narrative of the shills who moved to promoting bsv: Bitcoin was meant to be government-friendly (33 points, 138 comments)
    4. Hearn may have been the only sober guy around (21 points, 29 comments)
    5. PSA: The economical model of the Lightning Network is unsound. The LN will support different coins which will be interconnected and since the LN tokens will be transacted instead of the base coins backing them up their value will be eroded over time. (14 points, 8 comments)
    6. DARPA-Funded Study Looks at How Crypto Chats Spread on Reddit (1 point, 0 comments)
  13. 313 points, 8 submissions: CreativeName44
    1. Venezuela Hidden Bitcoin Cash paper wallet claimed with 0.17468 BCH! Congrats to the one who found it! (80 points, 0 comments)
    2. Alright BCH Redditors, Let's make some HUGE noise!! Announcing The NBA finals Toronto Raptors Hidden BCH Wallet!! (60 points, 9 comments)
    3. FindBitcoinCash gaining traction around the world - Calling out to Bitcoin Cashers to join the fun!! (41 points, 0 comments)
    4. The Toronto Raptors Bitcoin Cash Wallet has been hidden: Address qz72j9e906g7pes769yp8d4ltdmh4ajl9vf76pj0v9 (PLS RT - Some local media tagged on it) (39 points, 0 comments)
    5. This is the next BitcoinCash wallet that is going to be hidden, hopefully REALLY soon! (36 points, 13 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Cash Meetups From Around the World added to FindBitcoinCash (25 points, 0 comments)
    7. FindBitcoinCash Wallets in other languages English/Spanish/Lithuanian/Swedish/Korean (20 points, 18 comments)
    8. Thank you for a great article!! (12 points, 0 comments)
  14. 312 points, 1 submission: scriberrr
    1. WHY? (312 points, 49 comments)
  15. 311 points, 4 submissions: Anenome5
    1. Libertarian sub GoldandBlack is hosting a free, live online workshop about how to setup and use Electron Cash on Sat 1st June via discord, including how to use Cashshuffle, with a Q&A session to follow. All are invited! (119 points, 40 comments)
    2. For anyone who still hasn't seen this, here is Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone presenting their research on how to do 1 gigabyte blocks, all the way back in 2017 at the Scaling Bitcoin Conference. The BTC camp has known we can scale bitcoin on-chain for years, they just don't want to hear it. (92 points, 113 comments)
    3. @ the trolls saying "No one uses Bitcoin Cash", let's look at the last 60 blocks... (72 points, 84 comments)
    4. Research Reveals Feasibility of 1TB Blocks, 7M Transactions per Second (28 points, 22 comments)
  16. 293 points, 2 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. /Bitcoin mods are censoring posts that explain why BitPay has to charge an additional fee when accepting BTC payments (216 points, 110 comments)
    2. Meetups and adoption don't just happen organically, but are the result of the hard work of passionate community members. There are many others out there but these girls deserve some recognition! (77 points, 9 comments)
  17. 282 points, 1 submission: EddieFrmDaBlockchain
    1. LEAKED: Attendee List for Buffet Charity Lunch (282 points, 98 comments)
  18. 273 points, 4 submissions: HostFat
    1. Breakdown of all Satoshi’s Writings Proves Bitcoin not Built Primarily as Store of Value (159 points, 64 comments)
    2. Just to remember - When you are afraid that the market can go against you, use the state force. (48 points, 5 comments)
    3. CypherPoker.JS v0.5.0 - P2P Poker - Bitcoin Cash support added! (35 points, 3 comments)
    4. Feature request as standard for all bch mobile wallets (31 points, 12 comments)
  19. 262 points, 3 submissions: CaptainPatent
    1. Lightning Network capacity takes a sudden dive well below 1k BTC after passing that mark back in March. (97 points, 149 comments)
    2. Yeah, how is it fair that Bitpay is willing to eat a $0.0007 transaction fee and not a $2+ transaction fee?! (89 points, 59 comments)
    3. BTC Fees amplified today by last night's difficulty adjustment. Current (peak of day) next-block fees are testing new highs. (76 points, 59 comments)
  20. 262 points, 1 submission: Badrush
    1. Now I understand why Bitcoin Developers hate on-chain solutions like increasing block sizes. (262 points, 100 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (2337 points, 242 comments)
  2. LovelyDay (1191 points, 160 comments)
  3. Ant-n (1062 points, 262 comments)
  4. MemoryDealers (977 points, 62 comments)
  5. jtoomim (880 points, 108 comments)
  6. 500239 (841 points, 142 comments)
  7. jonald_fyookball (682 points, 86 comments)
  8. ShadowOfHarbringer (672 points, 110 comments)
  9. money78 (660 points, 41 comments)
  10. playfulexistence (632 points, 76 comments)
  11. Bagatell_ (586 points, 72 comments)
  12. Big_Bubbler (552 points, 196 comments)
  13. homopit (551 points, 79 comments)
  14. Anenome5 (543 points, 130 comments)
  15. WippleDippleDoo (537 points, 111 comments)
  16. MobTwo (530 points, 52 comments)
  17. FalltheBanks3301 (483 points, 87 comments)
  18. btcfork (442 points, 115 comments)
  19. chainxor (428 points, 71 comments)
  20. eyeofpython (425 points, 78 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google. by InMyDayTVwasBooks (619 points, 214 comments)
  2. Brains..... by MemoryDealers (420 points, 94 comments)
  3. Ponder the power of propaganda, Samson Mow, Adam Back and Greg Maxwell all know how import control of bitcoin is. by btcCore_isnt_Bitcoin (394 points, 98 comments)
  4. WHY? by scriberrr (312 points, 49 comments)
  5. "The claim “Bitcoin was purpose-built to first be a Store of Value” is false. In this article I've posting every single instance I could find across everything Satoshi ever wrote related to store of value or payments. It wasn't even close. Payments win." by Egon_1 (299 points, 82 comments)
  6. Erik Voorhees on Twitter: “I wonder if you realize that if Bitcoin didn’t work well as a payment system in the early days it likely would not have taken off. Many (most?) people found the concept of instant borderless payments captivating and inspiring. “Just hold this stuff” not sufficient.” by BitcoinXio (297 points, 68 comments)
  7. LEAKED: Attendee List for Buffet Charity Lunch by EddieFrmDaBlockchain (282 points, 98 comments)
  8. Now I understand why Bitcoin Developers hate on-chain solutions like increasing block sizes. by Badrush (262 points, 100 comments)
  9. "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow." by money78 (261 points, 131 comments)
  10. Jonathan Toomim: "At 32 MB, we can handle something like 30% of Venezuela's population using BCH 2x per day. Even if that's all BCH ever achieved, I'd call that a resounding success; that's 9 million people raised out of poverty. Not a bad accomplishment for a hundred thousand internet geeks." by money78 (253 points, 180 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 109 points: mossmoon's comment in Now I understand why Bitcoin Developers hate on-chain solutions like increasing block sizes.
  2. 104 points: _degenerategambler's comment in Nobody uses Bitcoin Cash
  3. 96 points: FreelanceForCoins's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
  4. 94 points: ThomasZander's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
  5. 91 points: cryptotrillionaire's comment in The Art of Rewriting History ... File this under Deception!
  6. 87 points: tjonak's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
  7. 86 points: money78's comment in Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]"
  8. 83 points: discoltk's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
  9. 79 points: jessquit's comment in Ways to trigger a Shitcoin influencer Part 1: Remind them that’s it’s very likely they got paid to shill fake Bitcoin to Noobs
  10. 78 points: PaladinInc's comment in The BCH miners are good guy heroes!
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Technical discussion of Gavin's O(1) block propagation proposal

I think there isn't wide appreciation of how important Gavin's proposal is for the scalability of Bitcoin. It's the real deal, and will get us out of this sort of beta mode we've been in of a few transactions per second globally. I spent a few hours reviewing the papers referenced at the bottom of his excellent write-up and think I get it now.
If you already get it, then hang around and answer questions from me and others. If you don't get it yet, start by very carefully reading https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2.
The big idea is twofold: fix the miner's incentives to align better with users wanting transactions to clear, and eliminate the sending of redundant data in the newblock message when a block is solved to save bandwidth.
I'll use (arbitrarily) a goal of 1 million tx per block, which is just over 1000 TPS. This seems pretty achievable, without a lot of uncertainty. Really! Read on.
Today, a miner really wants to propagate a solved block as soon as possible to not jeopardize their 25 BTC reward. It's not the cpu cost for handling the transactions on the miner's side that's the problem, it's the sending of a larger newblock message around the network that just might cause her block to lose a race condition with another solution to the block.
So aside from transactions with fees of more than 0.0008 BTC that can make up for this penalty (https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482), or simply the goodwill of benevolent pools to process transactions, there is today an incentive for miners not to include transactions in a block. The problem is BTC price has grown so high so fast that 0.0008 BTC is about 50 cents, which is high for day-to-day transactions (and very high for third world transactions).
The whole idea centers around an old observation that since the network nodes (including miners) have already received transactions by the normal second-by-second operation of the p2p network, the newblock announcement message shouldn't have to repeat the transaction details. Instead, it can just tell people, hey, I approve these particular transactions called XYZ, and you can check me by taking your copy of those same transactions that you already have and running the hash to check that my header is correctly solved. Proof of work.
A basic way to do this would be to send around a Bloom filter in the newblock message. A receiving node would check all the messages they have, see which of them are in this solved block, and mark them out of their temporary memory pool. Using a BF calculator you can see that you need about 2MB in order to get an error rate of 10e-6 for 1 million entries. 2MB gives 16 million bits which is enough to almost always be able to tell if a tx that you know about is in the block or not.
There are two problems with this: there may be transactions in the solved block that you don't have, for whatever p2p network or policy reason. The BF can't tell you what those are. It can just tell you there were e.g. 1,000,000 tx in this solved block and you were able to find only 999,999 of them. The other glitch is that of those 999,999 it told you were there, a couple could be false positives. I think there are ways you could try to deal with this--send more types of request messages around the network to fill in your holes--but I'll dismiss this and flip back to Gavin's IBLT instead.
The IBLT works super well to mash a huge number of transactions together into one fixed-size (O(1)) data structure, to compare against another set of transactions that is really close, with just a few differences. The "few differences" part compared to the size of the IBLT is critical to this whole thing working. With too many differences, the decode just fails and the receiver wouldn't be able to understand this solved block.
Gavin suggests key size of 8B and data of 8B chunks. I don't understand his data size--there's a big key checksum you need in order to do full add and subtract of IBLTs (let's say 8B, although this might have to be 16B?) that I would rather amortize over more granular data chunks. The average tx is 250B anyway. So I'm going to discuss an 8B key and 64B data chunks. With a count field, this then gives 8 key + 64 data + 16 checksum + 4 count = 92B. Let's round to 100B per IBLT cell.
Let's say we want to fix our newblock message size to around 1MB, in order to not be too alarming for the change to this scheme from our existing 1MB block limit (that miners don't often fill anyway). This means we can have an IBLT with m=10K, or 10,000 cells, which with the 1.5d rule (see the papers) means we can tolerate about 6000 differences in cells, which because we are slicing transactions into multiple cells (4 on average), means we can handle about 1500 differences in transactions at the receiver vs the solver and have faith that we can decode the newblock message fully almost all the time (has to be some way to handle the occasional node that fails this and has to catch up).
So now the problem becomes, how can we define some conventions so that the different nodes can mostly agree on which of the transactions flying around the network for the past N (~10) minutes should be included in the solved block. If the solver gets it wrong, her block doesn't get accepted by the rest of the network. Strong incentive! If the receiver gets it wrong (although she can try multiple times with different sets), she can't track the rest of the network's progress.
This is the genius part around this proposal. If we define the convention so that the set of transactions to be included in a block is essentially all of them, then the miners are strongly incentivized, not just by tx fees, but by the block reward itself to include all those transactions that happened since the last block. It still allows them to make their own decisions, up to 1500 tx could be added where convention would say not to, or not put in where convention says to. This preserves the notion of tx-approval freedom in the network for miners, and some later miner will probably pick up those straggler tx.
I think it might be important to provide as many guidelines for the solver as possible to describe what is in her block, in specific terms as possible without actually having to give tx ids, so that the receivers in their attempt to decode this block can build up as similar an IBLT on their side using the same rules. Something like the tx fee range, some framing of what tx are in the early part and what tx are near the end (time range I mean). Side note: I guess if you allow a tx fee range in this set of parameters, then the solver could put it real high and send an empty block after all, which works against the incentive I mentioned above, so maybe that particular specification is not beneficial.
From http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23fc0/P2P2013_041.pdf for example, the propagation delay is about 30-40 seconds before almost all nodes have received any particular transaction, so it may be useful for the solver to include tx only up to a certain point in time, like 30 seconds ago. Any tx that is younger than this just waits until the next block, so it's not a big penalty. But some policy like this (and some way to communicate it in the absence of centralized time management among the nodes) will be important to keep the number of differences in the two sets small, below 1500 in my example. The receiver of the newblock message would know when trying to decode it, that they should build up an IBLT on their side also with tx only from up to 30 seconds ago.
I don't understand Gavin's requirement for canonical ordering. I see that it doesn't hurt, but I don't see the requirement for it. Can somebody elaborate? It seems that's his way to achieve the same framing that I am talking about in the previous paragraph, to obtain a minimum number of differences in the two sets. There is no need to clip the total number of tx in a block that I see, since you can keep shoving into the IBLT as much as you want, as long as the number of differences is bounded. So I don't see a canonical ordering being required for clipping the tx set. The XOR (or add-subtract) behavior of the IBLT doesn't require any ordering in the sets that I see, it's totally commutative. Maybe it's his way of allowing miners some control over what tx they approve, how many tx into this canonical order they want to get. But that would also allow them to send around solved empty blocks.
What is pretty neat about this from a consumer perspective is the tx fees could be driven real low, like down to the network propagation minimum which I think as of this spring per Mike Hearn is now 0.00001 BTC or 10 "bits" (1000 satoshis), half a US cent. Maybe that's a problem--the miners get the shaft without being able to bid on which transactions they approve. If they try to not approve too many tx their block won't be decoded by the rest of the network like all the non-mining nodes running the bitpay/coinbases of the world.
Edit: 10 bits is 1000 satoshis, not 10k satoshis
submitted by sandball to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A PLEDGE: I invite you to help us stop the threats to Bitcoin fungibility

Given the recent developments that the Bitcoin community is aware of,
and whereas these threats can effectively destroy billions of dollars of your own hard-earned value, unless the owners of that value decide to surrender, fold, and snitch on themselves,
I have decided to make a pledge, and invite you to join me in helping you protect your identity and the value of your savings.
This pledge has two parts.

I will start a fork the official Bitcoin-QT client, if toxic fungibility-destructive functionality is committed into it

If the original client gains any code that generates doubt about received coin origins, such as the functionality suggested by Mike Hearn
Then I will fork the source code and invite all core and non-core developers to continue there.
The team behind this independent fork will maintain full compatibility with the specs as implemented today, but it will alter any coin-tracking functionality such that any coins marked "from a dubious source" by the original client will be marked as "good", coins marked as "clean" will be marked as "tracked, dangerous" and the rest will be marked as "unencumbered" or "untracked" or some such.
This flips the table on the irreparable antisocial damage that such a malicious insider attack on the original client can do, invalidating the attackers' efforts.
We will **not* fork the block chain. Your coins will be able to be used with either version of the client. We will maintain the standard distributed and replicated QA and release system to guarantee that your client won't be tampered with. You will not lose any money that you would not lose with the obsolete and compromised client.

I will start a system to track anyone who partakes of CoInvalidation's scheme, if this beast catches on

If the cabal of taint-lickers attempting to get CoInvalidation up and running succeed in getting even a single duped customer on boarded
Then I will start a system to track these customers and inform us in real time. I will also contribute as many resources as it is financially possible for me, and I will invite others to do so as well.
The newly-formed team will use these resources to help maintain a brownlist of people who cooperate with their scheme, both brick-and-mortar and online.
We will also maintain a browser extension that will mark their online presences as untrustworthy for the reasons aforementioned.
The brownlist will be crowdsourced. People will be able to report businesses as co-conspirators in the scheme. People will also be able to confirm claims and report businesses as having abandoned the CoInvalidation scheme, thereby bringing them back into good standing with the community.
This allows people to vote with their coins and protect them from deals that require them to snitch on themselves and track their identities in centralized databases maliciously.
Social action is the only practical way to stop antisocial action. You and I can make a difference without petitions or any other ineffective actions.
Upvotes are good, but they are not enough. This is why I decided to promise a part of my life to make this a reality. And I hope you can help us too. The least you can do is to share this with others. However, you can also be involved personally, and that is even better.
If you maintain a Bitcoin related codebase, you are hereby invited to join the effort by talking to us and rejecting insider attacks on your codebase.
This actionable warning is the first response to stem these threats, and should be enough to make them recant. If they won't, we will execute this plan. If my theories about human action and human decency are correct, we will win.

So, let us, you and I, show the world that we will not tolerate venal and irresponsible strangers threatening to destroy our money, and by extension, our personal and our families' lives.

Initially, we will organize here in this post, and as needs arise, then we will move to the appropriate fora and venues to organize each subproject.

UPDATES

  1. The Eligius mining pool already has code to deprioritise transaction validation for transactions which reused addresses. This drastically disincentivizes people who choose to register and reuse addresses with CoInvalidation.
  2. Coinsetter has preemptively said they won't be using the taints' services.
  3. CoinJoin is now enabled for everyone at Blockchain.info. If that gets shut down, I will start an unlogged CoinJoin server myself.
submitted by throwaway-o to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Investigating the work behind bitcoin: An history of Schnorr signatures within Bitcoin.

Introduction

Schnorr signatures are currently on the Bitcoin core roadmap and an implementation was supposed to be released before the end of this year. Being a mathematician I have been inquiring about Schnorr signature, the math behind it and its implications for bitcoin if it is ever implemented. This post is a list of links if anyone also wants source on the subject.
TLDR: To sum it up, Schnorr signature were introduced first as a potential optimization (batch verifications) and then as a possible scheme for signature aggregation. None of this has been implemented yet as many theoretical issue remain. To know more on these issues and on what “signature aggregation means” please refer to the links in this post.

An history of Schnorr signature within Bitcoin

As you may or may not know:
Schnorr algorithm has long been at the top of the wish list for many Bitcoin developers.
And indeed, it has been a long time... Are they top priority for Bitcoin core? I do not know, but they seem to be pretty high up on the priority list. Here is a quick timeline:
  1. Hal Finney talks about speeding up signature verification by implementing “batch signature verification”. This does not refer to Schnorr, but it is the starting point. February 2011.
  2. Mike Hearn elaborates on “batch signature verification”. He mentions a paper by the famous cryptograph D. Bernstein which successfully implemented such batch verification by using the twisted Edwards curve Ed25519 which relies on Schnorr signatures. August 2012.
  3. An anonymous user released a white paper proposing Boneh–Lynn–Shacham in order to implement signature aggregation. September 2013.
  4. Adam Back talks about his preference for Schnorr signatures over ECDSA due to the possible signature aggregation. October 2013.
  5. Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back talk about Schnorr signatures natively supporting multisig. March 2014.
  6. Gavin Andresen mentions it on his wish list in October 2014.
  7. Here is pretty good summary on Schnorr signatures advantages by David Harding. January 2015.
  8. Gregory Maxwell mentions it (quite negatively I might add) during his talk at the SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar in April 2015. Once again the reference is related to multisig and signature aggregation (from minute mark 20 to 40 ish).
  9. Pieter Wuille and Gregory Maxwell wrote a Schnorr API which was committed on July/August 2015. The latest change date from December 2015 and regards documentation.
  10. Gregory Maxwell referenced the post#3 of this list as a starting point to justify the implementation of Schnorr signatures. His justifications are towards batch verification and signature aggregation. February 2016.
  11. Pieter Wuille talks at Scaling Bitcoin 2016 Milan about Schnorr signatures, the history, the advantages and the problems they face. October 2016 (from minute mark 38 to 1H05 ish).
  12. Bitcoin Core technology roadmap announcing an upcoming whitepaper on Schnorr signature but also a BIP which would be announced by the end of 2017. March 2017.
  13. Pieter Wuille says that there will be a concrete proposal and implementation in 2018. November 2017.
Edit: formatting.
submitted by Azeroth7 to btc [link] [comments]

Beware, one or more of the moderators of Dashpay have been

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire
Edit: This morning the moderators of cryptotechnology also shadow deleted and banned me for the same thread highlighting Monero's 51% attack vulnerability! They control many subs and moderator positions! I'm probably going to start posting more on memo.cash and honest.cash now.
Which means that the moderators of dashpay have been compromised. If we're not allowed to criticize people who fud our coin, and if they're allowed to abuse the very rules that were created (mostly based on my fights with XMR trolls and how they were attempting to infiltrate with negativity instead of 'kindness'), then that is a clear signal that the moderators now serve the monero community.
Fortunately, I was banned today from dashpay. I will post the PMs and explain what I think this means for the communtiy.
I received this message today:
I have hidden your post.
5時間前 solarguy2003 から送信
You can't call people liars. We talked about this, please revise your post where you are talking to flenst and told him he is lying less, etc.
Now off the bat, its unusual to receive a warning like this via pm, with no link to the offending post. That's the first thing. The second thing is he's lying. In our discussion we 'didn't talk about this', this user is a MODERATOR he is not stalin. He does not have the power to control free speech nor to selectively interpret the rules, just like a baseball umpire can't turn a strikeout into a home run on his whim. Its his job to make sure the rules are followed, not to throw his weight around. If someone is lying and its proven they are lying then THEY are the aggressor, not the person calling them out.
He had no response for this then nor does he now. Why not? Because this is an attack on the dash community. I am the canary in the coal mine. This is our 'Mike Hearn' moment. Mark this post, in a year come back and see the chaos that has or has not been allowed to fester and grow in our otherwise placid and strong community.
I of course do not pretend to have contributed even 10% of what he did. Only that his message of frustration was the same kind of signal that censorship and manipulation were taking over the community. But unlike his message, this is a bullish message. The Monero coin is undergoing severe strain from the mining situation.
Just like in bitcoin this user flenst, a known member of the very aggressive and hostile monero community who has fudded our coin for over two years, sought to infiltrate and curry favor with our community. He most likely bribed or threatened the mods. I do not make this accusation lightly, I have been harassed by them online for months so I know what I'm talking about. They impersonated me with sockpuppets and followed me around on reddit in a form of online stalking.
From the beginning I recognized his game, use the rules to silence voices that they did not want heard. Today he has struck the first blow.
5時間前 solarguy2003 から送信
You can't call people liars. We talked about this, please revise your post where you are talking to flenst and told him he is lying less, etc.
Calling liars liars IS NOT AGAINST THE rules of the Dash subreddit! If you're lying you are trying to mislead people THAT IS AGGRESSIVE. It doesn't matter how nicely you do it, if you stab someone apologizing profusely as they bleed out it is NOT the same thing as not stabbing them in the first place. What does this mean? It means you have to be careful now. There are 'protected classes' whom 'you are not allowed to criticize' now. I was BANNED for calling flenst a liar.
I have been a member of the Dash community for years, I have fought tirelessly to defeat trolls like and including flenst, and yet he joins our subreddit for a couple of weeks and he has moderator protection now? Banning people for calling him out and not playing along with his pretend-friend game?! This is VERY bullish for Dash!! This the best they can do! They can't even defeat someone who's not on the core team in argument, they have to resort to lies and censorship.
Stay vigilant, stay frosty, because the monero community must be desperate to pull such a brazen move as this! Bank robbery in broad daylight!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to DashUncensored [link] [comments]

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?

Many people are starting to raise serious questions and issues regarding Peter Todd's "Opt-In Full RBF", as summarized below:
(1) RBF violates one of the fundamental principles of the Bitcoin protocol: irrevocable cash transactions.
Interesting point!
Th[is] really is [a] drastically different vision of what Bitcoin according to the core dev team...
It would be nice [if] they [wrote their] own "white paper" so we know where they are going...
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxflx55
"From a usability / communications perspective, RBF is all wrong. When the main function of your technology is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING, you don't add an "opt-in" feature which ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING."
BeYourOwnBank
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/
(2) Who even requested RBF in the first place? What urgent existing "problem" is RBF intended to solve? If you claim to be a supporter of RBF, would you be willing to go on the record and comment here on how it would personally benefit you?
Still waiting for an answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/
Lots of back and forth bit no answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfjxp7
Intentionally doing zero-conf for any reason other than expediting a payment to the same recipients is nothing more than attempted fraud. There needs to be a good reason for enabling this, and last time I looked the case has not been made.
People with a black and white view of the world who believe "0 conf bad, 1 conf good" simply do not understand how bitcoin works. By its random nature, bitcoin never makes final commitment to a transaction. Even with six confirmations there is still a chance the transaction will be reversed. In other words, bitcoin finality is not black and white. Instead, there is a probability distribution of confidence that a transaction will not be reversed. Software changes that make it easier to defraud people who have been reasonably accepting 0 conf transactions are of highly questionable value, as they reduce the performance (by increasing delay for a given confidence).
If transactions with appropriate fees start failing to ever confirm because of "block size" issues, then bitcoin is simply broken and, if it can not be fixed bitcoin will end up as dead as a doornail.
tl121
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf9udt
Transactions spending the same utxo were (until now) not relayed (except by XT nodes). So it wasn't as simple as just sending a double spend, because the transaction wouldn't propagate. FSS-RBF seemed like a good option to get your tx unstuck if you paid too little. Pure RBF I'm not sure what the point of it is. What problem is it solving?
peoplma
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfdb37
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.
So the opposite is actually true. The community actively do not want this change. Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this major change to the protocol?
yeeha4
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfbvvn
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."
BeYourOwnBank
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/
(3) RBF breaks zero-conf. Satoshi supported zero-conf. Were any actual merchants who have figured out pragmatic business approaches using zero-conf even consulted on this radical, controversial change?
My business accepts bitcoin and helps people with minor cash transfers and purchases. Fraud has NEVER been an issue as long as the transactions have been broadcast on the blockchain with appropriate fees. We usually send people their cash as soon as the transaction is broadcast.
Now we have to wait 10 minutes to avoid getting cheated out of hundreds of dollars, vastly increasing the service cost of accepting bitcoin. And we have to tell customers we promote bitcoin to that they are likely to be cheated if they don't wait 10 minutes while buying their bitcoin. It is such a spectacularly stupid thing to do, adding uncertainty and greater potential for fraud at every link of the transaction chain. Thanks a lot, Peter.
trevelyan22
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfjn78
Jeez, we need to give this "zero-conf was never safe" meme a rest already. Cash was also "never safe", but it's widely used because it works reasonably well in the context it's used. These people would probably advocate for a cashless society as well.
imaginary_username
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfisut
I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.
The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.
A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1 0
4 1
16 4
64 16
80% 20%
So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.
The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.
— satoshi
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
"RBF is agaisnt Satoshi's Vision. Peter Todd and others attacking Satoshi's vision again, while Gavin Andresen upholds his original vision steadfastly."
Plive
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ukc52/rbf_is_agaisnt_satoshis_vision_peter_todd_and/
Zero conf was always dangerous, true, but the attacker is rolling a dice with a double spend. And it is detectable because you have to put your double spend transaction on the network within the transaction propagation time (which is measured in seconds). That means in the shop, while the attacker is buying the newspaper, the merchant can get an alert from their payment processor saying "this transaction has a double spend attempt". Wrestling them to the ground is an option. Stealing has to be done in person... No different then from just shop lifting. The attacker takes their chance that the stealing transaction won't be the one that is mined.
With rbf, the attacker has up to the next block time to decide to release their double spend transaction. That means the attacker can be out of the shop and ten minutes away by car before the merchant gets the double spend warning from their payment processor. Stealing is not in person and success is guaranteed by the network.
Conclusion: every merchant and every payment processor will simply refuse to accept any rbf opt in transaction. That opt in might as well be a flag that says "enable stealing from you with this transaction"... Erm no thanks.
There might be a small window while wallet software is updated, but after that this " feature " will go dark. Nobody is going to accept a cheque signed "mickey mouse", and nobody is going to accept a transaction marked rbf.
Strangely, that means all this fuss about it getting merged is moot. It will inevitably not be used.
kingofthejaffacakes
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfkkr3
(4) What new problems could RBF create?
This opens up a new kind of vandalism that will ensure that no wallets use this feature.
The way it works is that if you make a transaction, and then double spend the transaction with a higher fee, the one with the higher fee will take priority.
DeftNerd
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfhd0m
RBF as released is a really, really stupid policy change that will open up Bitcoin to blackmail and wholesale theft of transactions.
Bitcoin XT can easily be better than the confused, agenda-ridden rubbish being released by Blockstream and their fellow-travellers.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkeah
This is truly unprecedented. There is MAJOR MONEY and MAJOR FORCES trying to destroy Bitcoin right now. We are witnessing history here. This might completely destroy the Bitcoin experiment
scotty321
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf53xn
I [too am] curious as to why Todd has been pushing that hard for RBF. People can double-spend if they really want to already, without any help from BS implementation.
thaolx
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf4t8l
(5) RBF apologists such as eragmus have been trying to placate objections by repeatedly emphasizing that this version of RBF is ok, saying that this is only "Opt-In (Full) RBF". But does the "opt-in" nature of this particular implementation of RBF really mitigate its potential problems?
"opt-in" is a bit of a red-herring.
As I understand: say I'm a vendor who doesn't want to accept RBF transactions. So I don't opt-in. I'm still stuck accepting RBF transactions because the sender, not the receiver, has the control.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxflg13
bitcoin is a push system.
how do I opt-out of a transaction generated and confirmed entirely outside my control?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxflhki
You are right you cannot opt-out.. You will have to wait ten minutes if you have recived a RBF Tx..
The user experience doesn't seem to be a priority for the core dev team...
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxfls9o
It's opt-in in theory, but that means everyone in the community who writes software which deals with transactions now has to develop code to deal with the ramifications.
discoltk
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfec1o
Yes it is opt-in, which means I have to anticipate ... congestion beforehand to use it. This has caused me troubles recently. Normally I use low-fee mode to transact and switch mode when the network is congested. A few times either I did not know about the congestion or forgot to switch mode and my txn got stuck for 12-48h. So for me this opt-in does nothing of help. If I was conscious about the congestion I would have switch to high-fee mode, no RBF needed.
...Or I have to enabled RBF for all my txns. Then there's problem of receivers have to all upgrade their wallet after the wallet devs choose to implement it. And just to add one more major complication when consider 0-conf.
thaolx
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfbbn6
What is the point of opt in rbf if it's not a good way to pay lower miner fees? According to nullc, if you guess too low then you end up paying for two transactions
specialenmity
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfoi99
(6) Who would benefit from RBF?
"Hopefully this will give Bitcoin payment processors a financial incentive to support Lightning Network development."
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/
It seems to me like RBF is addressing a problem (delays due to too-low fees) which would not exist if we had larger blocks. It seems fishy to make this and lightning networks to solve the problem when there's a much simpler solution in plain view.
We should set the bar for deceit and mischief unusually high on this one bc there is so much at stake, an entire banking empire.
ganesha1024
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfde8f
RBF seems at best to be a duct-tape solution to a problem caused by not raising the block size. in the process it kills zero conf (more or less).
rglfnt
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/cxfkqoh
PT [Peter Todd] is part of a group of devs who propose to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up transaction fees.
IOW [In other words], he's a glorified central planner.
A free market moves around such engineered scarcity. See also: the music business.
tl;dr stop running core.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/cxfljrk
This maybe a needed feature if Bitcoin get stuck with 1MB..
You might need to jack-up the fee several time to get your fees in a blocks in the future..
It seems that 1MB crrippecoin is really part of their vision.
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxfluyt
RBF makes sense in a world where blocks are small and always full.
It creates a volatile transaction pricing market where bidders try to outbid each other for the limited space in the current block of txns.
It serves the dual goals of limiting transactions and maximizing miner revenue resulting from the artificial scarcity being imposed by the block size limit.
The unfortunate side effect is that day to day P2P transactions on the Bitcoin network will become relatively expensive and will be forced onto another layer, or coin.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfksk7
RBF offers nothing in a world where there is always a little extra space in the block for the next transaction. It only makes sense in a world where blocks are full.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxflcn1
Unless your goal is to harm bitcoin.
Anen-o-me
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxflljw
(7) RBF violates two common-sense principles:
- "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid);
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
To say it a bit harsher but IMO warranted: P. Todd seems to be busy inventing useless crap and making things complicated for wallet devs...
awemany
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfkwvi
(8) Why is the less-safe version of RBF the one being released ("Full") rather than the "safe(r)" version (FSS - First-Seen Safe)?
Peter Todd had proposed two different versions of RBF: "Full" vs "FSS" (First-Seen Safe).
"Full" is the more dangerous version, because it allows general double-spending (I can't even believe we're even saying things like "allows general double-spending" - but that's the kind of crap Peter Todd is trying to foist on us).
"FSS" is supposedly a bit "safer", because is only allows double-spending a transaction with the same output.
What's being released now is "Opt-In Full RBF".
First-seen-safe restricts replace-by-fee to only replacing transactions with the same output (prevents double spending).
The reason this feature is being added is they see Bitcoin as a settlement network, so when there's a backlog users should be able to replace their transaction with a higher-fee one so it's included. It's to deal with the cripplingly low blocksizes.
Someone should just implement and merge first-seen-safe, since that's much more non-controversial. Keeps 0-confs safe(r) while enabling re-submitting transactions.
tytyty_
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxff3ej
I would have preferred first-seen-safe RBF, certainly. It can be a useful tool to just bump the transaction fee on an existing transaction.
coinaday
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf5eno
Ok, so if the only benefit of RBF is to unstick stuck transactions by increasing the fee; why did you use "Full RBF" instead of "FSS RBF"? Full RBF allows the sender to increase the fee and change who the receiver is. FSS (First-Seen-Safe) RBF only allows the sender to increase the fee, but does not allow the sender to change who the receiver is.
Tldr: FSS RBF should be enough to enable your wanted benefit of being able to resend stuck transactions by increasing their fee, but you chose Full RBF anyway. Why?
todu
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfm5qb
The benefit of opt-in RBF:
Now, when a transaction is not going through because fee was accidentally made too low or if there is a spam attack on the network, a user can "un-stuck" his/her transaction by re-sending it with a higher fee. No more being held to the mercy of miners maybe confirming your transaction, or not. The user gets some power back.
If this was the actual problem at hand, why not restrict the RBF to only increasing the fee, but not changing the output addresses.
RBF in it's current form is nothing but a tool to facilitate double spending. That is, it lowers the bar for default nodes to assist facilitating double spending. Which is VERY BAD for Bitcoin, imho.
Serisouly, I don't know what's gotten into those devs ACK'ing this decrease in Bitcoin's trustwortiness.
Kazimir82
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfn295
(9) Peter Todd has a track record of trying to break features which aren't perfect - even when real-world users find those features "good enough" to use in practice. Do you support Peter Todd's perfectionist and vandalist approach over the pragmatist "good-enough" approach, and if so, why or why not?
Destroying something just because it isn't perfect is stupid. By that logic we should even kill Bitcoin itself.
kraml
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfcmc7
How did a troll like peter todd get in control of bitcoin? This is fucking unbelievable.
Vibr8gKiwi
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfk89n
(10) Could the "game theory" on RBF backfire, and end up damaging Bitcoin?
And what if some/all miners simply hold RBF-enabled transactions into a separate pool and extract maximum value per transaction i.e. wait until senders cough up more & more ...
A very dangerous change that will actively encourage miners to collaborate on extracting higher fees or even extorting senders trying to 'fix' their transactions.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkozk
Peter Todd has a history of loving Game Theory, but he hasn't really applied those principals to the technological changes he's unilaterally making.
I don't understand how so many people could have been driven away or access removed so now he's able to make these changes despite community outcry.
DeftNerd
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkyok
A miner could simply separate all RBF-enabled TX into a separate list and wait for higher and higher fees to be paid. It's kind of like putting a "Take my money, Pls!!!" sign on your forehead and and going shopping.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfkha2
opens door for collusion and possibly extortion ... sender has flagged willingness to pay more.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfl64y
(11) RBF is a controversial, radical change to the Bitcoin protocol. Why has Peter Todd been allowed to force this on our community with no debate, no consensus and no testing?
It's not uncontroversial. There is clearly controversy. You can say the concerns are trumped up, invalid. But if the argument against even discussing XT is that the issue is controversial, the easy ACK'ing of this major change strikes many as hypocritical.
There is not zero impact. Someone WILL be double spent as a result of this. You may blame that person for accepting a transaction they shouldn't, or using a wallet that neglected to update to notify them that their transaction was reversible. But it cannot be said that no damage will result due to this change.
And in my view most importantly, RBF is a cornerstone in supporting those who believe that we need to keep small blocks. The purpose for this is to enable a more dynamic fee market to develop. I fear this is a step in the direction of a slippery slope.
(12) How does the new RBF feature activate?
Does anyone know how RBF activates? I mean if wallets are not upgraded this could be very dangerous for users. Because even if its opt-in this could kill zero confirmation for good.
seweso
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf3ui0
(13) PT on TP: Peter Todd fulfills the toilet-paper prophecy! [comic]
raisethelimit
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujjzn/pt_on_tp_peter_todd_fulfills_the_toiletpape
(14) RBF: A Counter-Argument - by Mike Hearn
https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d
(15) If you're against RBF, what can you do?
the solution to all this, is actually rather simple. Take the power away from these people. Due to the nature of bitcoin, we've always had that power. There never was a need for an "official" or "reference" implementation of the software. For a few years it was simply the most convenient, the mo[s]t efficient, and the best way to work out all the initial kinks bitcoin had. It was also a sort of restricted field in that (obviously) there were few people in the world who truly understood to the degree required to make a) design change proposals, and b) code for them (and note that while up until now this has been the case, it's not necessary for these 2 roles to be carried out by the same people). The last few months' debates over the blocksize limit have shown and educated thst a lot of people now truly understand what's what. And what's more one of the original core-devs (Gavin), already gave us the gift of proving in the real world that democracy in bitcoin can truly exist via voting with the software one (or miners) runs, without meaning to.
BitcoinXT was a huge gift to the community, and it's likely to reach its objective in a few months. It seems an implementation of bitcoin UL will test the same principle far sooner than we thought.
So the potential for real democracy exists within the network. And we're already fast on our way to most of the community stop[p]ing using core as the reference client. Shit like what Peter pulled yesterday, I predict, will simply accelerate the process. So the solution is arriving, and it's a far better solution th[a]t it would be to, say, locking Peter out of the project. Thi[s] will be real democracy.
I also predict in a couple of years a lot of big mining groups/companies/whatever will have their own development teams making their internal software available for everyone else to use. This will create an at[]mosphere of true debate of real issues and how to solve them, and it will allow people (miners) to vote with their implementations on what the "real" bitcoin should be and how it should function.
Exciting times ahead, the wheels are already in motion for this future to come true. The situation is grave, I won't deny that, but I do believe it's very, very temporary.
redlightsaber
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfn6r4
Yeah I think the time has come to migrate away from "core". There's obviously fishiness going on with the censorship and lack of transparency.
loveforyouandme
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf6yi8
Vote with your feet: don't run Blockstream Core.
SatoshisDaughter
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfdc4h
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to btc [link] [comments]

Mark Cuban Sounds Ignorant Blasting Bitcoin’s Security and Value Talk: Development with Bitcoin Core (Emil) Mark Hearn - YouTube How To Make $100 to $200 Per Day On Google Maps (Make ... GO HOME (Mark Angel Comedy) (Episode 258) - YouTube

Bitcoin: Warum Mike Hearn nicht mehr die Krypto-Währung glaubt. Mike Hearn war über einen Zeitraum von fünf Jahren einer der wichtigsten Bitcoin-Entwickler.Von seinem Enthusiasmus früherer ... after Mike Hearn, one of the most visible Bitcoin lead developers, announced on the 14th of January, 2015 that he had decided to throw in the towel and walked away for good. === As a matter of fact, thanks to his departure, for the first time in 2016, the Bitcoin price crossed the $400 mark on its way down. Ironically, at the same time the Bitcoin price was falling, prices in stock, financial ... Bitcoin XT war eine der ersten bemerkenswerten Bitcoin-Gabeln. Die Software wurde Ende 2014 von Mike Hearn auf den Markt gebracht, um mehrere neue Funktionen aufzunehmen, die er vorgeschlagen hatte. Während die Vorgängerversion von Bitcoin bis zu sieben Transaktionen pro Sekunde zuließ, strebte Bitcoin XT 24 Transaktionen pro Sekunde an. Zu diesem Zweck wurde vorgeschlagen, die Blockgröße ... Bitcoin schwankte im Preis und hat die Schwelle von tausend Dollar für etwa drei Jahre nicht überschritten. Dies war auf zahlreiche Faktoren zurückzuführen, wie den berüchtigten Blog-Eintrag von Mike Hearn, einem ehemaligen Google-Entwickler, der mit dem Umfeld der digitalen Währung in Verbindung steht. In einer Notiz nannte er Bitcoin ... Hearn states, “Bitcoin Core has a brilliant solution to this problem — allow people to mark their payments as changeable after they’ve been sent, up until they appear in the block chain. The stated intention is to let people adjust the fee paid, but in fact, their change also allows people to change the payment to point back to themselves, thus reversing it. —This protocol change will ...

[index] [42151] [44292] [3409] [17861] [9063] [33925] [4755] [33716] [32457] [30407]

Mark Cuban Sounds Ignorant Blasting Bitcoin’s Security and Value

Einführung in die Entwicklung mit der Bitcoin API, eigene Zahlungsgateways implementieren. Talk von Emil am 14. Juni 2019 Lizenz: CC BY-SA 4.0 Stratum 0: https://stratum0.org. Skip navigation Sign in. Search My #1 Recommendation To Make a Full-Time Income Online. CLICK HERE https://bigmarktv.com/Start/ How To Make $100 to $200 Per Day On Google Maps (Make M... Sign in to like videos, comment, and subscribe. Sign in. Watch Queue Queue One of the most common objections I hear is that Futures and Derivatives will ruin bitcoin Most are referring to Bitcoin's price being suppressed through manipulation by using bitcoin futures and ...

#