reddit - Three years ago today Mike Hearn published an ...

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2019-01-06 to 2020-01-05 11:19 PDT

Period: 363.85 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 86748
Rate (per day) 2.75 237.19
Unique Redditors 317 7747
Combined Score 194633 356658

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 31014 points, 162 submissions: Egon_1
    1. Vitalik Buterin to Core Maxi: “ok bitcoiner” .... (515 points, 206 comments)
    2. These men are serving life without parole in max security prison for nonviolent drug offenses. They helped me through a difficult time in a very dark place. I hope 2019 was their last year locked away from their loved ones. FreeRoss.org/lifers/ Happy New Year. (502 points, 237 comments)
    3. "It’s official Burger King just accepted Bitcoin Cash and GoC token as a payment option in Slovenia." (423 points, 112 comments)
    4. "HOLY SATOSHI! 😱😱 I did it! A smart card that produces valid BitcoinCash signatures. Who would love to pay with a card—to a phone?? Tap took less than a second!👟..." (368 points, 105 comments)
    5. Chrome 'Has Become Surveillance Software. It's Time to Switch' -> Brave to support BCH! (330 points, 97 comments)
    6. Gavin Andresen (2017): "Running a network near 100% capacity is irresponsible engineering... " (316 points, 117 comments)
    7. "Evidently @github has banned all the Iranian users without an ability for them to download their repositories. A service like Github must be a public good and must not be controlled by a centralized entity. Another great example of why we as a society need to make web3 a reality" (314 points, 117 comments)
    8. Roger Ver: "Bitcoin Cash acceptance is coming to thousands of physical shops in Korea" (313 points, 120 comments)
    9. Paul Sztorc: “Will people really spend $70-$700 to open/modify a lightning channel when there's an Altcoin down the street which will process a (USD-denominated) payment for $0.05 ? Many people seem to think yes but honestly I just don't get it” (306 points, 225 comments)
    10. Food For Thought (303 points, 105 comments)
  2. 29021 points, 157 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Bitcoin Cash is Lightning Fast! (No editing needed) (436 points, 616 comments)
    2. Brains..... (423 points, 94 comments)
    3. Meanwhile in Hong Kong (409 points, 77 comments)
    4. Ross Ulbricht has served 6 years in federal prison. (382 points, 156 comments)
    5. Just another day at the Bitcoin Cash accepting super market in Slovenia. (369 points, 183 comments)
    6. Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers. (369 points, 207 comments)
    7. History Reminder: (354 points, 245 comments)
    8. It's more decentralized this way. (341 points, 177 comments)
    9. The new Bitcoin Cash wallet is so fast!!!!! (327 points, 197 comments)
    10. The IRS wants to subpoena Apple and Google to see if you have downloaded crypto currency apps. (324 points, 178 comments)
  3. 6909 points, 37 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Tim Pool on Twitter: “How the fuck are people justifying creating a world like the one's depicted in Fahrenheit 451 and 1984? You realize that censorship and banning information was a key aspect of the dystopian nightmare right?” (435 points, 75 comments)
    2. The creator of the now famous HODL meme says that the HODL term has been corrupted and doesn’t mean what he intended; also mentions that the purpose of Bitcoin is to spend it and that BTC has lost its value proposition. (394 points, 172 comments)
    3. 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.” (302 points, 66 comments)
    4. Bitfinex caught paying a company to astroturf on social media including Reddit, Twitter, Medium and other platforms (285 points, 86 comments)
    5. WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
    6. Craig Wright seems to have rage quit Twitter (252 points, 172 comments)
    7. No surprise here: Samson Mow among other BTC maxi trolls harassed people to the point of breakdown (with rape threats, etc) (249 points, 85 comments)
    8. 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.” (228 points, 102 comments)
    9. btc is being targeted and attacked, yet again (220 points, 172 comments)
    10. Brian Armstrong CEO of Coinbase using Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to pay for food, video in tweet (219 points, 66 comments)
  4. 6023 points, 34 submissions: money78
    1. BSV in a nutshell... (274 points, 60 comments)
    2. There is something going on with @Bitcoin twitter account: 1/ The URL of the white paper has been changed from bitcoin.com into bitcoin.org! 2/ @Bitcoin has unfollowed all other BCH related accounts. 3/ Most of the posts that refer to "bitcoin cash" have been deleted?!! Is it hacked again?! (269 points, 312 comments)
    3. "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." (262 points, 130 comments)
    4. 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, 170 comments)
    5. Jonathan Toomim: "BCH will not allow block sizes that are large enough to wreak havoc. We do our capacity engineering before lifting the capacity limits. BCH's limit is 32 MB, which the network can handle. BSV does not share this approach, and raises limits before improving actual capacity." (253 points, 255 comments)
    6. What Bitcoin Cash has accomplished so far 💪 (247 points, 55 comments)
    7. Which one is false advertising and misleading people?! Bitcoin.com or Bitcoin.org (232 points, 90 comments)
    8. A message from Lightning Labs: "Don't put more money on lightning than you're willing to lose!" (216 points, 118 comments)
    9. Silk Road’s Ross Ulbricht thanks Bitcoin Cash’s [BCH] Roger Ver for campaigning for his release (211 points, 29 comments)
    10. This account just donated more than $6600 worth of BCH via @tipprbot to multiple organizations! (205 points, 62 comments)
  5. 4514 points, 22 submissions: unstoppable-cash
    1. Reminder: bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" (436 points, 89 comments)
    2. Peter R. Rizun: "LN User walks into a bank, says "I need a loan..." (371 points, 152 comments)
    3. It was SO simple... Satoshi had the answer to prevent full-blocks back in 2010! (307 points, 150 comments)
    4. REMINDER: "Bitcoin isn't for people that live on less than $2/day" -Samson Mow, CSO of BlockStream (267 points, 98 comments)
    5. "F'g insane... waited 5 hrs and still not 1 confirmation. How does anyone use BTC over BCH BitcoinCash?" (258 points, 222 comments)
    6. Irony:"Ave person won't be running LN routing node" But CORE/BTC said big-blocks bad since everyone can't run their own node (256 points, 161 comments)
    7. BitPay: "The Wikimedia Foundation had been accepting Bitcoin for several years but recently switched pmt processors to BitPay so they can now accept Bitcoin Cash" (249 points, 61 comments)
    8. FreeTrader: "Decentralization is dependent on widespread usage..." (195 points, 57 comments)
    9. The FLIPPENING: Fiat->OPEN Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash! Naomi Brockwell earning more via BitBacker than Patreon! (193 points, 12 comments)
    10. LN Commentary from a guy that knows a thing or 2 about Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen-LEAD developer after Satoshi left in 2010) (182 points, 80 comments)
  6. 3075 points, 13 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo! (410 points, 166 comments)
    2. Chess.com used to accept Bitcoin payments but, like many other businesses, disabled the option. After some DMs with an admin there, I'm pleased to announce that they now accept Bitcoin Cash! (354 points, 62 comments)
    3. WSJ: Bitfinex Used Tether Reserves to Mask Missing $850 Million, Probe Finds (348 points, 191 comments)
    4. Bitcoiners: Then and Now [MEME CONTEST - details in comments] (323 points, 72 comments)
    5. I'd post this to /Bitcoin but they would just remove it right away (also I'm banned) (320 points, 124 comments)
    6. So this is happening at the big protest in Hong Kong right now (270 points, 45 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin mods are censoring posts that explain why BitPay has to charge an additional fee when accepting BTC payments (219 points, 110 comments)
    8. The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
    9. The Bitcoin whitepaper was published 11 years ago today. Check out this comic version of the whitepaper, one of the best "ELI5" explanations out there. (153 points, 12 comments)
    10. Two Years™ is the new 18 Months™ (142 points, 113 comments)
  7. 2899 points, 18 submissions: jessquit
    1. Oh, the horror! (271 points, 99 comments)
    2. A few days ago I caught flak for reposting a set of graphs that didn't have their x-axes correctly labeled or scaled. tvand13 made an updated graph with correct labeling and scaling. I am reposting it as I promised. I invite the viewer to draw their own conclusions. (214 points, 195 comments)
    3. Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
    4. Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
    5. PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
    6. Nobody uses Bitcoin Cash (182 points, 88 comments)
    7. Double-spend proofs, SPV fraud proofs, and Cashfusion improvements all on the same day! 🏅 BCH PLS! 🏅 (165 points, 36 comments)
    8. [repost] a reminder on how btc and Bitcoin Cash came to be (150 points, 102 comments)
    9. Holy shit the entire "negative with gold" sub has become a shrine devoted to the guilded astroturfing going on in rbtc (144 points, 194 comments)
    10. This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
  8. 2839 points, 13 submissions: SwedishSalsa
    1. With Bitcoin, for the first time in modern history, we have a way to opt out. (356 points, 100 comments)
    2. In this age of rampant censorship and control, this is why I love Bitcoin. (347 points, 126 comments)
    3. The crypto expert (303 points, 29 comments)
    4. Satoshi reply to Mike Hearn, April 2009. Everybody, especially newcomers and r-bitcoin-readers should take a step back and read this. (284 points, 219 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Cash looking good lately. (235 points, 33 comments)
    6. Roger Ver bad (230 points, 61 comments)
    7. History of the BTC scaling debate (186 points, 54 comments)
    8. MFW i read Luke Jr wants to limit BTC blocks to 300k. (183 points, 116 comments)
    9. Meanwhile over at bitcoinsv... (163 points, 139 comments)
    10. Listen people... (155 points, 16 comments)
  9. 2204 points, 10 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. China bans Bitcoin again, and again, and again (426 points, 56 comments)
    2. China bans Bitcoin (again) (292 points, 35 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash Network has now been upgraded! (238 points, 67 comments)
    4. So you want small blocks with high fees to validate your own on chain transactions that happen OFF CHAIN? (212 points, 112 comments)
    5. It’s happening - BTC dev Luke jr writing code to Bitcoin BTC codebase to fork to lower the block size to 300kb! (204 points, 127 comments)
    6. Former BTC maximalist admits that maxi's lied cheated and stealed to get SegWit and Lightning (201 points, 135 comments)
    7. Just 18 more months to go! (172 points, 86 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Cash ring - F*CK BANKS (167 points, 51 comments)
    9. LTC Foundation chat leaked: no evidence of development, lack of transparency (155 points, 83 comments)
    10. A single person controls nearly half of all the Lightning Network’s capacity (137 points, 109 comments)
  10. 2138 points, 12 submissions: JonyRotten
    1. 'Craig Is a Liar' – Early Adopter Proves Ownership of Bitcoin Address Claimed by Craig Wright (309 points, 165 comments)
    2. 200,000 People Have Signed Ross Ulbricht's Clemency Petition (236 points, 102 comments)
    3. Street Artist Hides $1,000 in BTC Inside a Mural Depicting Paris Protests (236 points, 56 comments)
    4. Craig Wright Ordered to Produce a List of Early Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Lawsuit (189 points, 66 comments)
    5. Ross Ulbricht Clemency Petition Gathers 250,000 Signatures (163 points, 24 comments)
    6. Ross Ulbricht Letter Questions the Wisdom of Imprisoning Non-Violent Offenders (160 points, 50 comments)
    7. Expert Witness in Satoshi Case Claims Dr Wright's Documents Were Doctored (155 points, 44 comments)
    8. California City Official Uses Bitcoin Cash to Purchase Cannabis (151 points, 36 comments)
    9. Money Transmitter License Not Required for Crypto Businesses in Pennsylvania (141 points, 9 comments)
    10. McAfee to Launch Decentralized Token Exchange With No Restrictions (137 points, 35 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (16708 points, 2083 comments)
  2. Ant-n (7878 points, 1517 comments)
  3. MemoryDealers (7366 points, 360 comments)
  4. Egon_1 (6205 points, 1001 comments)
  5. 500239 (5745 points, 735 comments)
  6. BitcoinXio (4640 points, 311 comments)
  7. LovelyDay (4353 points, 457 comments)
  8. chainxor (4293 points, 505 comments)
  9. MobTwo (3420 points, 174 comments)
  10. ShadowOfHarbringer (3388 points, 478 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. The perfect crypto t-shirt by Korben (742 points, 68 comments)
  2. The future of Libra Coin by themadscientistt (722 points, 87 comments)
  3. when you become a crypto trader... by forberniesnow (675 points, 54 comments)
  4. A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google. by InMyDayTVwasBooks (637 points, 209 comments)
  5. Imagine if in 2000 Apple just sat around all day shit-talking Microsoft. Apple would have never gone anywhere. Apple succeeded because they learned from their mistakes, improved, and got better. BCH should do the same. by guyfawkesfp (552 points, 255 comments)
  6. Bitcoin made The Simpsons intro! Sorry for the potato quality by Johans_wilgat (521 points, 44 comments)
  7. Vitalik Buterin to Core Maxi: “ok bitcoiner” .... by Egon_1 (515 points, 206 comments)
  8. Can't stop won't stop by Greentoboggan (514 points, 78 comments)
  9. These men are serving life without parole in max security prison for nonviolent drug offenses. They helped me through a difficult time in a very dark place. I hope 2019 was their last year locked away from their loved ones. FreeRoss.org/lifers/ Happy New Year. by Egon_1 (502 points, 237 comments)
  10. Blockchain? by unesgt (479 points, 103 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
  2. 203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
  3. 179 points: Chris_Pacia's comment in The BSV chain has just experienced a 6-block reorg
  4. 163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
  5. 161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
  6. 156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻‍♂️
  7. 155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
  8. 151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
  9. 147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
  10. 147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

BTC is centralized and filled with misinformation/censorships and controlled by a single entity. However, their propaganda has worked wonders and made many people think the opposite. The fact is, Bitcoin Cash is magnitudes more decentralized...

Credits To thepaip and singularity87
TLDR: BTC is centralized and filled with misinformation/censorships and controlled by a single entity. However, their propaganda has worked wonders and made many people think the opposite. The fact is, Bitcoin Cash is magnitudes more decentralized in terms of miners, multiple independent development/research teams, etc. There are 3 things that cannot be hidden for long; the sun, the moon, and the truth. Educate yourself and spread the truth. This is the only way to make a stand against misinformation and censorships.
People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
Source: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/
Sources:
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/633119949943275520
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hb63g/bip_suggestion_lock_the_blockchain_to_only/cu5v2u2/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uu3we/bitstamp_will_switch_to_bip_101_this_decembe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uu3we/bitstamp_will_switch_to_bip_101_this_decembecxi370c/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3rejl9/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_bip_101_is_the_best/cwpglh6
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3axnc3/this_is_the_definition_of_fud_how_to_subvert/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/
http://pastebin.com/1kvuj5bw
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/418r0l/lukejr_is_already_trying_to_sabotage_bitcoin/
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.cjuafsypy
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3axnc3/this_is_the_definition_of_fud_how_to_subvert/
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.g42rjs2ew
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-classic-targeted-by-ddos-attacks/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h2wiv/was_theymos_running_a_botnet_in_2007_theymos/?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fm11b/unullc_is_actively_trying_to_delete_satoshi_from/?
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/180#discussion_r91823463
submitted by MobTwo to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Bitcoin devs do NOT have consensus on blocksize

I am making this post to show to the public what the most active developers in Bitcoin, more specifically Bitcoin Core, think about block size increases. Contrary to what the public may think, there is no consensus amongst the developers regarding Gavin Andresen’s proposal to increase the block size to 20mb (Thanks to Peter Todd who brought this up during his Bitdevs NYC talk which I attended). The only devs that have come out in strong favor of this proposal is Gavin and Mike Hearn.
The rest are against any increase, prefer a smaller increase, or have not expressed an opinion either way but is asking for further research, development, and answers before we proceed. I believe that the public opinion has been highly swayed by Gavin, and we should strongly consider what others who have spent numerous hours on the protocol have to say on the topic. If any information here is inaccurate , or if there are others who I’ve missed , please let me know and I will edit them in. I’ve probably missed a lot of good comments from other developers because it is scattered all over the internet and my google-fu is not good (And please excuse my ham fisted way of labeling developer contribution by the # of commits on github. ).
I also apologize in advance if any developers feel like they are being called out. But I believe strongly that it's important to have public statements that have been made on the internet to be consolidated in one place for such an important topic. Especially when we have dangerous misconceptions where users think that increasing blocksize is a single parameter optimization with no costs like increasing the size of your race car engine. The topic of block size is not a technical issue, it is a political issue at heart. There are real trade offs involved, with people and entities who stands to gain on both sides of the debate.
For 20mb increase
Gavin Andresen
Current Affiliations: MIT Digital Currency Initiative, Coinbase
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: http://gavinandresen.ninja/
Mike Hearn
Current Affiliations: Lighthouse
Bitcoin core: top 100 core developer by # of commits. Creator of Bitcoinj .
Comments: https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e
Skeptics of 20mb increase (Note that some people here do favor a block size increase, but none has strongly committed to 20 megabytes as the exact size.)
Pieter Wuille
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07466.html
Wladaimir J. Van der Laan
Current Affiliations: MIT Digital Currency Initiative
Bitcoin core: top 5 developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07472.html
Gregory Maxwell
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqycy4h
Jeff Garzik
Current Affiliations: BitPay
Commit access: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: https://twitter.com/anjiecast/status/595610865979629568
http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html
Matt Corallo
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits
Comments: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090292/
Peter Todd
Current Affiliations: Viacoin,Dark Wallet, Coinkite, Smartwallet, Bitt
Bitcoin Core: top 20 core developer by # of commits
Comments: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/34y9ws/it_must_be_done_but_is_not_a_panacea/cqza6rq?context=3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNL1a7aKThs
Luke Dashjr
Current Affiliations: Eligius Mining Pool
Bitcoin Core: top 10 core developer by # of commits
Comments: http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqzadpn
Bryan Bishop
Current Affiliations: LedgerX
Bitcoin Core: various @ https://github.com/kanzure
Comments: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090516/
submitted by kaykurokawa to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Banned on r/bitcoin for a comment that didn't even show up

Banned on bitcoin for a comment that didn't even show up
So, 12 days ago I stumbled upon on the post on bitcoin where the readers are encouraged to report @Bitcoin account to Twitter (for unjustified "scamming and account buying/selling"). I wasn't banned on bitcoin yet, but I thought I could post something sensible, as I thought that what they're doing was not right. Link to post.
Unfortunately, I was censored immediately by auto-moderator, probably because of some keyword I used, as seen on this snew link (I'm one of 2 censored instantly posts).
Please note that I don't post on bitcoin often, don't even visit anymore, and my last comment there was 7 months ago. And yesterday - BAM.
https://preview.redd.it/cat72n0sp2r21.png?width=822&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2b94901d7b3b7b202b901d3eb39e7cf43c86b79
By now, you're probably interested to see what I wrote, so here's my comment in full:
@Bitcoin account is the living proof that there exist people that once were bitcoin supporters. As real bitcoin supporters as you are now. And they saw the change that happened in the bitcoin software and the bitcoin community. And they changed their mind, not really about what the bitcoin means to them, but about what the bitcoin has become.
Nobody bought/stole the @Bitcoin account. There are many of us that changed our mind, and I can tell you, bitcoin is not what it used to be. I used to be a bitcoin supporter, I mined my first BTC in 2012, I ran the full node, I ate the burgers paid by bitcoin in 2014. And although I did all that things, and supported BTC 100%, I changed my mind when I saw the $0.5 fee, a thing that was ridiculed as impossible just a few years before. And I saw the $50 fee, and paid ~$10 fee to escape from BTC to Bitcoin Cash. And I saw the BTC to alt dominance slip from 90% to ~30%.
Let me ask you, why do you think there is only one Linux kernel? Why do you think there was 90% BTC market dominance? Answer is the same - it is not easy to do the fork. If I were to fork the BTC in 2012 (as many have), it wouldn't have any value. All alts put together had less than 5% of value of BTC market cap. If I were to fork the Linux kernel, nobody would use it. Nobody would contribute to it. I would need to do miracle to do better than existing linux community, attract more better developers, attract the users, and do all that hard work. Why would I do that, if I already have working Linux kernel, and I can freely contribute to it, and it will continue to serve my needs?! Well, the same cannot be said for bitcoin. Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System is not money if I need to pay significant fraction of the transaction to the miner fees. And it is very easy for me to fork BTC, and acquire a lot of supporters that don't like the current state of bitcoin. Even those that oppose the fork will leave the bitcoin because it became unusable, and align themselves for some of the other promising altcoins.
Look up the LibreOffice, MariaDB, and stories behind them, and you will see what the Bitcoin Cash is. It's no fake copy, it's the original.
For anyone interested in the history of bitcoin, look up who Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn were, and what they did. Let me know if you think you are better supporter of BTC then they were.
For anyone who thinks I'm imagining things, please be assured, I lived through it, I was where you are now, and here's the truth written up in details: https://hackernoon.com/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada
submitted by 9500 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]

BTC is centralized and filled with misinformation/censorships and controlled by a single entity. However, their propaganda has worked wonders and made many people think the opposite. The fact is, Bitcoin Cash is magnitudes more decentralized...

Credits To thepaip and singularity87
TLDR: BTC is centralized and filled with misinformation/censorships and controlled by a single entity. However, their propaganda has worked wonders and made many people think the opposite. The fact is, Bitcoin Cash is magnitudes more decentralized in terms of miners, multiple independent development/research teams, etc. There are 3 things that cannot be hidden for long; the sun, the moon, and the truth. Educate yourself and spread the truth. This is the only way to make a stand against misinformation and censorships.
People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
Source: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/
Sources:
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/633119949943275520
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hb63g/bip_suggestion_lock_the_blockchain_to_only/cu5v2u2/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uu3we/bitstamp_will_switch_to_bip_101_this_decembe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uu3we/bitstamp_will_switch_to_bip_101_this_decembecxi370c/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3rejl9/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_bip_101_is_the_best/cwpglh6
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3axnc3/this_is_the_definition_of_fud_how_to_subvert/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/
http://pastebin.com/1kvuj5bw
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/418r0l/lukejr_is_already_trying_to_sabotage_bitcoin/
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.cjuafsypy
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3axnc3/this_is_the_definition_of_fud_how_to_subvert/
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.g42rjs2ew
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-classic-targeted-by-ddos-attacks/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h2wiv/was_theymos_running_a_botnet_in_2007_theymos/?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fm11b/unullc_is_actively_trying_to_delete_satoshi_from/?
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/180#discussion_r91823463
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

The Origins of the Blocksize Debate

On May 4, 2015, Gavin Andresen wrote on his blog:
I was planning to submit a pull request to the 0.11 release of Bitcoin Core that will allow miners to create blocks bigger than one megabyte, starting a little less than a year from now. But this process of peer review turned up a technical issue that needs to get addressed, and I don’t think it can be fixed in time for the first 0.11 release.
I will be writing a series of blog posts, each addressing one argument against raising the maximum block size, or against scheduling a raise right now... please send me an email ([email protected]) if I am missing any arguments
In other words, Gavin proposed a hard fork via a series of blog posts, bypassing all developer communication channels altogether and asking for personal, private emails from anyone interested in discussing the proposal further.
On May 5 (1 day after Gavin submitted his first blog post), Mike Hearn published The capacity cliff on his Medium page. 2 days later, he posted Crash landing. In these posts, he argued:
A common argument for letting Bitcoin blocks fill up is that the outcome won’t be so bad: just a market for fees... this is wrong. I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash.
...a permanent backlog would start to build up... as the backlog grows, nodes will start running out of memory and dying... as Core will accept any transaction that’s valid without any limit a node crash is eventually inevitable.
He also, in the latter article, explained that he disagreed with Satoshi's vision for how Bitcoin would mature[1][2]:
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy.
Gavin continued to publish the series of blog posts he had announced while Hearn made these predictions. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Matt Corallo brought Gavin's proposal up on the bitcoin-dev mailing list after a few days. He wrote:
Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this mailing list in several years as far as I can tell...
So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code simpler).
This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo
Shortly thereafter, Corallo explained further:
The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to continue to run in a decentralized manner.
Tier Nolan considered possible extensions and modifications that might improve Gavin's proposal and argued that soft caps could be used to mitigate against the dangers of a blocksize increase. Tom Harding voiced support for Gavin's proposal
Peter Todd mentioned that a limited blocksize provides the benefit of protecting against the "perverse incentives" behind potential block withholding attacks.
Slush didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and neither did Eric Lombrozo, though Eric was interested in developing hard-fork best practices and wanted to:
explore all the complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a one-off ad-hoc thing.
Matt Whitlock voiced his opinion:
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork... I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
Bryan Bishop strongly opposed Gavin's proposal, and offered a philosophical perspective on the matter:
there has been significant public discussion... about why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the road while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many excellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not referenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but feel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have been ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of discussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other subtle and extremely important technical details that are completely absent from this--and other-- proposals.
Secured decentralization is the most important and most interesting property of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be achieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional technology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical nature of the system we have constructed.
There's no doubt in my mind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the most extreme misunderstandings... for development purposes we must hold ourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes, especially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and economically unsafe.
There are many potential technical solutions for aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny bundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending transactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording every transaction, you could record the start state and the end state, and end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold, without modifying max block size and without potentially compromising secured decentralization.
The MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to measure decentralization and its security.. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial because we would have a more academic and technical understanding to work with.
Gregory Maxwell echoed and extended that perspective:
When Bitcoin is changed fundamentally, via a hard fork, to have different properties, the change can create winners or losers...
There are non-trivial number of people who hold extremes on any of these general belief patterns; Even among the core developers there is not a consensus on Bitcoin's optimal role in society and the commercial marketplace.
there is a at least a two fold concern on this particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous, decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective scarcity of capacity.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward...
tools like the Lightning network proposal could well allow us to hit a greater spectrum of demands at once--including secure zero-confirmation (something that larger blocksizes reduce if anything), which is important for many applications. With the right technology I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, but there needs to be a reason to build it; the security and decentralization level of Bitcoin imposes a hard upper limit on anything that can be based on it.
Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't possible today
the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk. Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available data and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use of Bitcoin; it's no big deal". Unfortunately, every indicator I can think of except fee totals has been going in the wrong direction almost monotonically along with the blockchain size increase since 2012 when we started hitting full blocks and responded by increasing the default soft target. This is frustrating
many people--myself included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin Core to increase the scalability. This work isn't small-potatoes boring software engineering stuff; I mean even my personal contributions include things like inventing a wholly new generic algebraic optimization applicable to all EC signature schemes that increases performance by 4%, and that is before getting into the R&D stuff that hasn't really borne fruit yet, like fraud proofs. Today Bitcoin Core is easily >100 times faster to synchronize and relay than when I first got involved on the same hardware, but these improvements have been swallowed by the growth. The ironic thing is that our frantic efforts to keep ahead and not lose decentralization have both not been enough (by the best measures, full node usage is the lowest its been since 2011 even though the user base is huge now) and yet also so much that people could seriously talk about increasing the block size to something gigantic like 20MB. This sounds less reasonable when you realize that even at 1MB we'd likely have a smoking hole in the ground if not for existing enormous efforts to make scaling not come at a loss of decentralization.
Peter Todd also summarized some academic findings on the subject:
In short, without either a fixed blocksize or fixed fee per transaction Bitcoin will will not survive as there is no viable way to pay for PoW security. The latter option - fixed fee per transaction - is non-trivial to implement in a way that's actually meaningful - it's easy to give miners "kickbacks" - leaving us with a fixed blocksize.
Even a relatively small increase to 20MB will greatly reduce the number of people who can participate fully in Bitcoin, creating an environment where the next increase requires the consent of an even smaller portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Where does that stop? What's the proposed mechanism that'll create an incentive and social consensus to not just 'kick the can down the road'(3) and further centralize but actually scale up Bitcoin the hard way?
Some developers (e.g. Aaron Voisine) voiced support for Gavin's proposal which repeated Mike Hearn's "crash landing" arguments.
Pieter Wuille said:
I am - in general - in favor of increasing the size blocks...
Controversial hard forks. I hope the mailing list here today already proves it is a controversial issue. Independent of personal opinions pro or against, I don't think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in nature. Either the result is effectively a fork, and pre-existing coins can be spent once on both sides (effectively failing Bitcoin's primary purpose), or the result is one side forced to upgrade to something they dislike - effectively giving a power to developers they should never have. Quoting someone: "I did not sign up to be part of a central banker's committee".
The reason for increasing is "need". If "we need more space in blocks" is the reason to do an upgrade, it won't stop after 20 MB. There is nothing fundamental possible with 20 MB blocks that isn't with 1 MB blocks.
Misrepresentation of the trade-offs. You can argue all you want that none of the effects of larger blocks are particularly damaging, so everything is fine. They will damage something (see below for details), and we should analyze these effects, and be honest about them, and present them as a trade-off made we choose to make to scale the system better. If you just ask people if they want more transactions, of course you'll hear yes. If you ask people if they want to pay less taxes, I'm sure the vast majority will agree as well.
Miner centralization. There is currently, as far as I know, no technology that can relay and validate 20 MB blocks across the planet, in a manner fast enough to avoid very significant costs to mining. There is work in progress on this (including Gavin's IBLT-based relay, or Greg's block network coding), but I don't think we should be basing the future of the economics of the system on undemonstrated ideas. Without those (or even with), the result may be that miners self-limit the size of their blocks to propagate faster, but if this happens, larger, better-connected, and more centrally-located groups of miners gain a competitive advantage by being able to produce larger blocks. I would like to point out that there is nothing evil about this - a simple feedback to determine an optimal block size for an individual miner will result in larger blocks for better connected hash power. If we do not want miners to have this ability, "we" (as in: those using full nodes) should demand limitations that prevent it. One such limitation is a block size limit (whatever it is).
Ability to use a full node.
Skewed incentives for improvements... without actual pressure to work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while - while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on the entire ecosystem.
Fees and long-term incentives.
I don't think 1 MB is optimal. Block size is a compromise between scalability of transactions and verifiability of the system. A system with 10 transactions per day that is verifiable by a pocket calculator is not useful, as it would only serve a few large bank's settlements. A system which can deal with every coffee bought on the planet, but requires a Google-scale data center to verify is also not useful, as it would be trivially out-competed by a VISA-like design. The usefulness needs in a balance, and there is no optimal choice for everyone. We can choose where that balance lies, but we must accept that this is done as a trade-off, and that that trade-off will have costs such as hardware costs, decreasing anonymity, less independence, smaller target audience for people able to fully validate, ...
Choose wisely.
Mike Hearn responded:
this list is not a good place for making progress or reaching decisions.
if Bitcoin continues on its current growth trends it will run out of capacity, almost certainly by some time next year. What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the available time window.
I no longer believe this community can reach consensus on anything protocol related.
When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be fee pressure that funds mining
What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing.
Peter Todd then pointed out that, contrary to Mike's claims, developer consensus had been achieved within Core plenty of times recently. Btc-drak asked Mike to "explain where the 12 months timeframe comes from?"
Jorge Timón wrote an incredibly prescient reply to Mike:
We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals already. I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there should be consensus about them. If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm ears. I just hope that by "What we need to see right now is leadership" you don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
Oh, so your answer to "bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees and we would like to know more about how it will look like then" it's "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the future so let's just worry about the present". I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a similar situation to be able to predict that future better. What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
this is my plan: we wait 12 months... and start having full blocks and people having to wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times. That would be the beginning of a true "fee market", something that Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening). Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage. What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and obvious. I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon. But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.
Some suspected Gavin/Mike were trying to rush the hard fork for personal reasons.
Mike Hearn's response was to demand a "leader" who could unilaterally steer the Bitcoin project and make decisions unchecked:
No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadership
I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size limit... I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment...
we need to hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say around here.
Jorge Timón responded:
it is true that "universally uncontroversial" (which is what I think the requirement should be for hard forks) is a vague qualifier that's not formally defined anywhere. I guess we should only consider rational arguments. You cannot just nack something without further explanation. If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your nack because it makes no sense". In the same way, when people use fallacies (purposely or not) we must expose that and say "this fallacy doesn't count as an argument". But yeah, it would probably be good to define better what constitutes a "sensible objection" or something. That doesn't seem simple though.
it seems that some people would like to see that happening before the subsidies are low (not necessarily null), while other people are fine waiting for that but don't want to ever be close to the scale limits anytime soon. I would also like to know for how long we need to prioritize short term adoption in this way. As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the most important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa. But yeah, this is progress, I'll wait for your more detailed description of the tragedies that will follow hitting the block limits, assuming for now that it will happen in 12 months. My previous answer to the nervous "we will hit the block limits in 12 months if we don't do anything" was "not sure about 12 months, but whatever, great, I'm waiting for that to observe how fees get affected". But it should have been a question "what's wrong with hitting the block limits in 12 months?"
Mike Hearn again asserted the need for a leader:
There must be a single decision maker for any given codebase.
Bryan Bishop attempted to explain why this did not make sense with git architecture.
Finally, Gavin announced his intent to merge the patch into Bitcoin XT to bypass the peer review he had received on the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2012 London: Mike Hearn - YouTube Bitcoin Mining in China - No Ban, No Crackdown EB82 – Mike Hearn - Blocksize Debate At The Breaking Point Hitler finds out about Mike Hearn and the bitcoin dump Is Bitcoin Dead? - The Bitcoin Experiment Article by Mike Hearn (FULL AUDIO) - Blocksize Debate

Mike Hearn. Follow . Aug 12, 2015 · 11 min ... If it were the case then literally anyone could kill Bitcoin by just mining a block or two with different rules. The entire purpose of the block ... “But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short-term, the long-term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins.” Mining Bitcoin; Bitcoin.com podcast; Bitcoin Tools; Bitcoin Wiki; Reddit; Live Chat ; The Bitcoin Forum Index Bitcoin Bitcoin Discussion; Mike Hearn: A Bitcoin Believer’s Crisis of Faith. 17 posts • Page 1 of 1. BitcoinXio Nickel Bitcoiner Posts: 166 Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:12 pm. Mike Hearn: A Bitcoin Believer’s Crisis of Faith. Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:02 am . A new article by the NY ... Long one of the most important developers in Bitcoin, Mike Hearn rewrote much of Satoshi Nakamoto’s code. Hearn also openly theorized about what the technology’s potential and future uses could be. In a much-publicized decision, Hearn divorced Bitcoin last fall, causing high drama in the Bitcoin community. He had been pondering how the cryptocurrency could lend itself to more users, and ... https: img [ url] Three years ago today, Mike Hearn published an article explaining exactly what would happen when the 1MB blocksize limit was hit. He was right on all counts. by BeijingBitcoins at reddit 168 comments The post leads to Medium : Cras..

[index] [832] [44059] [20027] [43243] [51500] [3926] [1042] [37964] [26105] [746]

Bitcoin 2012 London: Mike Hearn - YouTube

"Bitcoin Mining is Banned in China" - this was the headline that ran on Western media. This is far from the truth! Mining is well and alive in china, and various ASICS (Bitmain Antminer s9, L3 ... Hitler finds out about Mike Hearn and the bitcoin crash New video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKhCeu0JENA 19Jhnvibr9HkESGUa1j8uTVDCfWjEVCkwj The Bitcoin Group #84 -- Mike Hearn tries to kill Bitcoin - Segregated Witness - Robocoin - Netflix World Crypto Network. Loading... Unsubscribe from World Crypto Network? Cancel Unsubscribe ... Today our guest is Mike Hearn who many of you are familiar with. He's one of the first Bitcoin users and the developer of BitcoinJ, a Java library used by a number of popular Bitcoin wallets such ... Mike Hearn, que alegou ser um dos devs da Bitcoin, escreveu um posto bombástico, jogou o microfone no chão e foi embora. O preço caiu, muitos se desesperaram, os entendidos deram risada e ...

#