Bitcoin dev Mike Hearn quits /r/BitcoinMarkets : BitcoinAll

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]

Open Letter From a Casual Investor

Dear Bitcoin community (all of it),
I've been investing in Bitcoin since 2012 and have seen many ups and downs over the past 5 years. I was a big believer for a while, I stuck around during the last hardfork, during the Mt. Gox collapse, during the dark days of the Bearwhale, during the Paycoin/GAW scam, after Mike Hearn's rage-quit — point is, I've been around.
Like most people, I have a pretty minimal understanding of the underlying cryptography and code of Bitcoin itself. I'm in this for two reasons:
  1. I like the idea of a currency that is governed by math, not governments.
  2. I have so far made money on it and believe I can make more as the idea takes deeper and deeper root.
Now, here's the thing: Bitcoin is getting harder and harder to use. I can't just send Bitcoins to someone anymore. I've stopped evangelizing about it because I don't want to get embarrassed by a 40-minute transaction and because I don't want to pay a dollar to send a dollar.
I don't care what fixes it. But right now, it's broken as far as the average user concerned.
Segwit, to be honest, sounds like an unnecessarily complex 'solution' that may or may not address the issue. But raising the block size limit (ideally making it dynamic) just sounds like the best, most practical solution to a person like me who does not have the time or inclination to read through scores of scientific whitepapers or scour line after line of code.
My point is this: I'm not buying Bitcoins anymore. In fact, I'm shorting them heavily. Ethereum is the new game in town, and right now, it's on track to win out long term. Because: 1. It's not broken. If I send Ether, it arrives. 2. The fees aren't out of control. A few cents — as it should be. I'm not being punished for actually using the coin. 3. Devs listen to the community. Not the other way around. 4. They had the balls to fork.
The DAO incident and the ensuing debate over Ethereum Classic were settled. The Ethereum blockchain is fine and Ethereum Classic is becoming a footnote for the hardliners to rally around.
So, to the BU/Classic devs, I say the time has come. This has gone on entirely too long. Quit waiting for permission from the Chinese miners. They are after a fee market and will draw it out as long as they can. The first rule of economics: "People will do what they are incentivized to do.".
The power of Bitcoin's persuasion does not lie in its hashing power. It lies in investors and users like me. If we have a useful coin, we will turn it into a profitable coin, which will make it a coin worth mining.
We're not going to settle this with anything other than a fork. "Consensus" will only come when there are actually two options. So, let's do it. Let's take the short term hit to the price by releasing this thing into the wild.
The better coin will win out eventually. Be it Segwit, BU/Classic, or Ethereum, or Monero, or Litecoin, or any other coin out there.
I personally think it may already be too late, but the time has long since come.
Bitcoin must evolve now or die a slow death.
submitted by The_Ugliest_Man_Ever to btc [link] [comments]

The /r/btc China Dispatch: Episode 1 - China Reacts to Hearn’s Rage Quit

Hello, fellow /bitcoin refugees! The thought recently occurred to me that the transition from North Korea to our new uncensored home here might be helped if more original content was published to this sub. As I am a translator by trade, it seems like the best way for me to contribute on an individual level is to provide the English-speaking community here with a window into how the Chinese-speaking bitcoin community thinks about bitcoin and the issues facing bitcoin today. I believe that it is more important now than ever to bridge the cultural and linguistic gaps in this space so that more minds can have access to all available information and work on the most important problems facing the community together.
Therefore, I have decided to commit a small amount of time every day for the next week to translating a Chinese discussion thread or news article into English. My hope is that you guys will find these translations interesting and informative and if the response this week is generally positive, I may consider making this into a regular project.
So, without further ado: here is a thread from the Chinese bitcoin forum 8btc.com regarding Mike Hearn’s recent decision to throw in the towel on bitcoin. The original thread can be viewed here: http://8btc.com/thread-27998-1-1.html)
[OP]
Title: The Bitcoin Experiment Has Failed: Time to Sell Your Holdings and Pack it in Folks
Posted by 英年早睡
I’ve spent more than 5 years being a Bitcoin developer. The software I’ve written has been used by millions of users, hundreds of developers, and the talks I’ve given have led directly to the creation of several startups. I’ve talked about Bitcoin on Sky TV and BBC News. I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. I have explained Bitcoin to the SEC, to bankers and to ordinary people I met at cafes.
From the start, I’ve always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an experiment and like all experiments, it can fail. So don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose. I’ve said this in interviews, on stage at conferences, and over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik.
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.
http://www.8btc.com/mike-hearn-bitcoin
Well it looks like one of the big gods has spoken. What are you guys still holding out for?
[Response 1]
Posted by 胡老头
Back in 2013 there was a developer who gave up on bitcoin, and what happened after that? This is nothing but a personal miscalculation. I don’t care whether it’s a developer or even Satoshi himself saying that a decentralized system like bitcoin has failed - it’s equally meaningless and doesn’t do anything to change the general trend of robust development.
[Response 2]
Posted by ls-a
This Mike Hearn is the guy who was promoting XT, right? Just because XT has failed doesn’t mean that bitcoin has failed.
[Response 3]
Posted by 秦的爱恋
Just because bitcoin has failed doesn’t mean that cryptocurrency has failed.
[Response 4]
Posted by yuli7376
The future success or failure of bitcoin is not something that can be decided by a single person. Even if the entire development team quit there will always be new people who will take the reigns and continue development.
[Response 5]
Posted by bitea
I guess the foreign [Western] community had a bit of a shock and have started selling? In that case keep it up guys. Makes it easier for us to accumulate.
[Response 6]
Posted by 玛_雅
This Mike Hearn is the guy who was promoting XT, right? Just because XT has failed doesn’t mean that bitcoin has failed.
His decision “not to continue participating in the development of bitcoin” may be due to the fact that the community saw that he put forward the radical proposal known as XT and expelled him since he was not suited to core development. In truth, he didn’t exit core development, but was kicked out. Now with this announcement he’s trying to make it out like he’s the one quitting as a way to save face.
Given that he tried to promote the 8MB solution in XT, it’s clear that he’s not a “big god,” but more like just a “big cow” [translator’s note: in Chinese netspeak, “big cow” can be used to refer to someone of talent, but the word is a significant step below “big god”]. There is a greater security risk with 8MB. The real big god is the guy who proposed the “segregated witness” soft fork.
[Response 7]
Posted by 大绅士奇奇怪
I looks to me like he’s pissed off because of the lack of support for XT. At the current stage the vast majority of people who accept bitcoin are fairly radical. Yet this big god complains in his essay that other people are too conservative! He’s gotta be off his meds. Also, this big god seems to really like to talk smack about China’s internet, but he doesn’t do anything except complain. His attitude is really not what you would expect from someone of his caliber.
[Reponse 8]
Posted by vatten
Any time that money is involved any kind of radical proposal is going to be rejected. It’s the same reason why the US Fed can only move interest rates 0.25% at a time.
[Response 9]
Posted by yuxuan
If you don’t want to play, just leave quietly.
That’s all for now folks. Will be back with another installment tomorrow.
Edit + 4 hours: Holy shit. Never would have thought there would be so much enthusiasm for this post. Thanks for all the positive feedback. I look forward to continuing this series in the future!
submitted by KoKansei to btc [link] [comments]

On Mike Hearn, Block Size, and Bitcoin’s Future

My new years resolution was to avoid the block size debate. Oh well.

Regardless what you think of block size debate. Mike Hearn and his tactics have done nothing but pollute the well. He has been intransigent in development, his proposals were routinely shut down because they were horrible on a technical level, he had many dangerous ideas which undermined the very concept of Bitcoin. When he made no traction with his idea, he created his own Bitcoin client.
Because that wasn’t enough he began politicking users to switch to his client. When users found no technical benefit or improvement over his client and failed to adopt it, that wasn’t enough. He then found a tool which he could use to drive a wedge into the community, and drive adoption to his client or so he thought, the block size. Rather than offer constructive support to this issue, he recruited Gavin and others to create this imaginary war that did not exist, of a Bitcoin mafia vs the people. Coincidentally, it was during this time that he became concerned with the block size that the spam attacks on the network beginning happening. Heckuva coincidence.
Mike, in his dramatic style, made the proclamation that bitcoin is forking and with that he introduced a new level of politics to Bitcoin beyond what it had ever experienced. In addition, Mike has managed to make the scaling issue, a complex technical issue, into something that is a political litmus test, like abortion, or gun control, something that was sorely missing in a technical community.
As if merely raising the block limit would fix Bitcoin’s problem in his eyes. Mike is smart enough to know that wasn’t the case, but it didn’t matter because by turning something complex into something simple, he was able to sell the story, to people who weren’t interested in the technical nuances, but wanted something to hang their beliefs on. His ideas were perfect fodder to those adopters who were suffering in Bitcoin’s long bear market. Mike had the answer, bitcoin is suffering because the devs refuse to scale it. Mike Hearn had a simple solution, just change a number, it's so easy, any lay person can see that. Clearly if you opposed such a simple change you had ulterior motives, the people in opposition where trying to steal bitcoin.
Mike worked in front and behind the scenes like a dogged politician to create this imaginary timetable that bitcoin was about to explode and collapse, watch the price he said. Creating sensationalist media posts that were technically flawed, and painted bookworm engineers, who have done nothing but work in the best interest of Bitcoin, as scheming backroom politicians who were co-opting bitcoin for their meglo-maniacal ambitions (project much Mike?) When the time table for Bitcoin’s, life or death decision came and went, and bitcoin did not collapse, and no one adopted his client, he cried foul. Ironically, Mike laments that Bitcoin is the hands of 10 developers (not true) yet he had appointed himself the benevolent dictator of his coin Bitcoin-XT.
Why was the Bitcoin community not falling on its sword and adopting his plans? It’s probably because again, the secret cabal was conspiring to suppress his ideas. His ideas which were spammed over social media, which got thousands of page views, which generated hundreds if not thousands of hours of discussion. Despite all this, no-one knew that Mike had this beautiful solution to rescue bitcoin, all because this evil mafia conspired to deny freedom to Bitcoiners around the world and keep his ideas a secret.
Meanwhile actual developers are moving forward with proposals that will scale bitcoin but Mike says that isn’t enough. Despite his incessant nagging, driving XTers to brigade every bitcoin discussion, ruining technical discussions in the development mailing list. That still wasn’t enough. Nope, unless Mike Hearn got his way, Bitcoin is a failed experiment. Mike Hearn’s goal was never about Bitcoin, it was about wrecking Bitcoin. There is no way you can reconcile his tactics with someone who put Bitcoin first.
No one had previously proposed forking Bitcoin to their own client, without calling it an altcoin or alternate implementation. Even Garzik was clear about it in discussion with Satoshi himself. Mike was the first to introduce the idea that creating your own implementation of Bitcoin, which is not compatible with other implementations, and changes a core function of bitcoin with something as low as 75% approval, was not an alt version of bitcoin but was still Bitcoin. Amazing, He has attempted to change what was an accepted and understand aspect of Bitcoin.
Now forking Bitcoin is a grand idea, Bitcoin forks for everyone. Forking Bitcoin is not something new, it has been around since day one, and the community had agreed that a fork of Bitcoin, without unanimous consensus, was an Altcoin.
People who care about bitcoin do not promote Altcoins because it’s clear this would fracture Bitcoin and undermine the very method in which bitcoin secures itself. But in Mike’s world people should undermine their investment in order to get a better investment.
Bitcoin has shown that the economic consensus mechanism works, that the consensus will respect the protocol. That if the time to change the protocol comes, it will be a change that is readily apparent, and will be adopted unanimously (Mike, that means without opposition.) Because from an economic interest it makes no sense to undermine bitcoin by fracturing it. And so surprise, suprise, bitcoin participants are making rational economic decisions. Bitcoin is not a democracy where 51% rules. In fact that is Bitcoin in a state of attack.
Still the very fact that Bitcoin has continued to function, and even begun to rise again precisely when it was supposed to be collapsing, was a slap in the face to Mike Hearn. So the final stroke a front page NYT , “you can’t fire me I quit ” announcement with a dramatic companion post all over social media, as If Bitcoin has lost some key intellectual power.
Sorry Mike, but Bitcoin is not yours to fail.
The best thing that could happen to Bitcoin and Mike Hearn is a final divorce, though messy it has been. But has Mike really left us? Something tells me he hasn’t. Instead Mike’s new job will be to further the new meme that Bitcoin is a failed experiment and he should know because he was a “lead” developer who worked directly with Satoshi.
And for proof, this morning I watched the Brookings Institute Webstream of their conference Beyond the Blockchain. The very first thing thing Charley Cooper of R3 CEV (Mike’s new employer) brought up was how Bitcoin was failed according to Mike Hearn, how Bitcoin was not going anywhere and that the future was private block chains.
So let’s congratulate Mike on his new role, where he will work to undermine bitcoin at every turn in front of regulators, banks, VCs and the public. At least now Mike can stop pretending what his real goal has been all along.
Because this has never been about raising the block limit or about or about a technical issue. This has been about co-opting Bitcoin into either Mike Hearn’s coin, or something more nefarious, on behalf of greater powers.
Mike, Good Luck, Stay Strong; I wish you the best.
source: http://bitledger.info/on-mike-hearn-block-size-and-bitcoins-future/
submitted by bitledger to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Backlog at 27,000 txs. I can't at this time recommend Bitcoin to my friends until the network is fixed and capacity is increased

This seems so silly. Its sad that we are letting Bitcoin stagnate. If the blocksize was increased I bet we would have a lot more users, more investment, VC interest, improved infrastructure, more innovative services, higher price, and other mind-blowing things that you cannot even imagine. Instead its all being blocked. Blockstream does damage control and says they are the ones making all the code and everyone else is leaving. Yeah that is what happens in a captured industry. Quality devs cannot even contribute to Core because their code will likely be blocked and vetoed. This is why Mike Hearn started XT because they blocked his lighthouse code. This is why quality devs like Mike are quitting Bitcoin.
Notice all of the energy companies quit too, leaving the monopoly to GE. All of the small banks and credit unions are closing down, so the too-big-to-fail banks can get more monopoly bailouts. The same thing is happening in this space, and BlockStream is trying to get complete control over the protocol and Bitcoin's future, disgracing Satoshi's vision.
People are attempting to capture Bitcoin in the same way as other industries have been captured. But I still hold hope. Because Bitcoin is supposed to be resistant to these attacks. We should have expected these usurpers to come. Now is the test if the people can rise up and throw off the tyranny of BlockStream Core. If we can do it we will prove to the world that Bitcoin is in fact different and resistant to such capture. The price will rise extraordinarily if such an accomplishment is made and if the community can successfully rebel against Core. I hope everyone will learn their lesson soon and realize the immediate need for a block size increase.
Bitcoin is not so much about technology and code. Its about a human network. At the end of the day we the people run this network. Once the people regain control of the network, then I will feel much more confident to recommend it to others. I really hope the people will rise up and bring justice to this situation sooner than later.
I think this is going to be a huge embarrassment to BlockStream, Bitcoin Core, and the devs like Adam Back, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Luke jr. People like Samson Mow, eragmus, and btcdrak are never going to be given credibility in this industry ever again. It will be sweet justice. The steadfast people who "get it" like Brian Armstrong, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, and Satoshi Nakamoto are going to be proven right in the end. They are the people that the world will look back upon with respect, while the others will be disgraced forever.
submitted by moonjob to btc [link] [comments]

Grab your bitcoins boys

Been drama city for months, finally just exploded with Mike Hearn (one of the ol devs) quitting bitcoin development and selling all his coins. Most importantly announcing it on his way out the door. He's mad because his blocksize proposal didn't gain traction. Anyways, dude has his balls deep in a direct competitor so no wonder.
Bitcoin classic (a fork proposal) has passed critical mining majority (50% on board and counting) which is a blocksize increase amongst a change in "control". Basically it's a dream for bitcoin, one of its hugest hurdles at the moment looks to be solved shortly and the price tanked thanks to Hearn releasing am article in NYT.
Great buy opportunity and it seems to have hit bottom. Out @460 weeks ago in @360s meow.
Tl;dr Crybaby Dev with stake in competitor quits and spreads tons of FUD, plebs panic-sell right as consensus is finally coming to fruition on scaling issue. Not to mention inflation is set to halve this year
7k in
Edit: Was 365when I started typing, 375 10minutes later. How the fuck do you not all trade bitcoin? It's so volatile, fucking beautiful.
submitted by jaspmf to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are Low-Level CopyCats and We Do Support Onchain Scaling

Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc on 2 Dec.
Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling.
We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here.
Let’s see:
Q: How do you comment on BU?
A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad.
Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU.
Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin.
BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong.
(from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ?
Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:)
We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins.
Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions.
Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange.
A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential.
Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork?
I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW.
But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes.
If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals.
Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling.
Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore?
A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all.
For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools.
At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed.
I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB.
For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system.
In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years.
Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html
In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core.
Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing.
Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit?
Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff.
If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin.
Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response.
Activity of BU on GitHub Imgur
Activity of Core Imgur
Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992c https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229
Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future?
Imgur
It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever.
Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can.
Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone.
SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB.
Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/
Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference?
A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC.
Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report?
A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine.
The AMA is conducted in Chinese.
Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English.
To see the original Chinese AMA text,
Please first sign in on news.8btc.com , the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread:
http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html
Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
submitted by 8btccom to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

New to Bitcoin?

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

History: /btc vs /Bitcoin

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

Bitcoin Network Hard Forks

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

What Happens Now

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

TL:DR;

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

Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are terrible and We Do Support Onchain Scaling

Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc. Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling.
We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here.
Let’s see:
Q: How do you comment on BU?
A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad.
Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU.
Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin.
BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong.
(from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ?
Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:)
We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins.
Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions.
Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange.
A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential.
Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork?
I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW.
But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes.
If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals.
Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling.
Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore?
A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all.
For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools.
At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed.
I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB.
For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system.
In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years.
Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html
In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core.
Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing.
Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit?
Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff.
If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin.
Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response.
Activity of BU on GitHub http://i.imgur.com/ElZ71vv.jpg
Activity of Core GitHub http://i.imgur.com/XbNGUqz.jpg
Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992c https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229
Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future?
http://i.imgur.com/P1duZTn.png
It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever.
Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can.
Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone.
SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB.
Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/
Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference?
A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC.
Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report?
A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine.
The AMA is conducted in Chinese.
Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English.
To see the original Chinese AMA text,
Please first sign in on news.8btc.com, the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread:
http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html
Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
submitted by 8btccom to btc [link] [comments]

It's time for a break: About the recent mess & temporary new rules

Unfortunately, I was on vacation this weekend, so I was unable to prevent /Bitcoin from becoming messy. Sorry about that. I and other moderators more-or-less cleaned it up. Report anything that we missed.
Because people are still probably in a "troll-happy" mood from the lack of moderation, moderation will be increased for a while. Everyone needs some time to calm down. In particular, posts about anything especially emotionally-charged will be deleted unless they introduce some very substantial new ideas about the subject. This includes the max block size debate (any side) and /Bitcoin moderation. Also, people are continuously spamming links to inferior clones of /Bitcoin and the XT subreddit -- these links will be removed and the posters banned unless the links are remarkably appropriate for the given situation. When this sticky is removed, the rules will return to what they were previously.
It is possible that some people have been or will be banned too readily due to the increased moderation. If this happens to you, mail /Bitcoin with a justification of your actions, then wait 2 days and mail again if there's no satisfactory response, then wait 4 days, then 8, 16, 32, etc. If your mail to /Bitcoin is too high-volume, we may block all further mail from you, which will make it impossible for your to appeal your ban.

About XT

/Bitcoin exists to serve Bitcoin. XT will, if/when its hardfork is activated, diverge from Bitcoin and create a separate network/currency. Therefore, it and services that support it should not be allowed on /Bitcoin. In the extremely unlikely event that the vast majority of the Bitcoin economy switches to XT and there is a strong perception that XT is the true Bitcoin, then the situation will flip and we should allow only submissions related to XT. In that case, the definition of "Bitcoin" will have changed. It doesn't make sense to support two incompatible networks/currencies -- there's only one Bitcoin, and /Bitcoin serves only Bitcoin.
If a hardfork has near-unanimous agreement from Bitcoin experts and it's also supported by the vast majority of Bitcoin users and companies, we can predict with high accuracy that this new network/currency will take over the economy and become the new definition of Bitcoin. (Miners don't matter in this, and it's not any sort of vote.) This sort of hardfork can probably be adopted on /Bitcoin as soon as it has been determined that the hardfork is not absolutely against the spirit of Bitcoin (inflating out-of-schedule, for example). For right now, there will always be too much controversy around any hardfork that increases the max block size, but this will probably change as there's more debate and research, and as block space actually becomes more scarce. I could see some kind of increase gaining consensus in as soon as 6 months, though it would have to be much smaller than the increase in XT for ~everyone to agree on it so soon.
There's a substantial difference between discussion of a proposed Bitcoin hardfork (which was previously always allowed here, even though I strongly disagree with many things posted) and promoting software that is programmed to diverge into a competing network/currency. The latter is clearly against the established rules of /Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin's technology will continue working fine no matter what people do, even the attempt at splitting Bitcoin up like this will harm the Bitcoin ecosystem and economy.

Why is XT considered an altcoin even though it hasn't broken away from Bitcoin yet?

Because it is intentionally programmed to diverge from Bitcoin, I don't consider it to be important that XT is not distinct from Bitcoin quite yet. If someone created a fork of Bitcoin Core that allowed miners to continue mining 25 BTC per block forever, would that be "Bitcoin" even though it doesn't split from the Bitcoin currency/network quite yet? (I'd say no.)

Can I still talk about hard fork proposals on /Bitcoin?

Right now, not unless you have something really new and substantial to say.
After this sticky is removed, it will be OK to discuss any hardfork to Bitcoin, but not any software that hardforks without consensus, since that software is not Bitcoin.

If XT is an altcoin then why aren't sidechains or Lightning altcoins?

/Bitcoin is about the Bitcoin currency and network. Lightning allows you to move the Bitcoin currency. Sidechains are on-topic in general because they are a possibly-useful addition to the Bitcoin network. It is possible that some specific sidechains might not be on-topic -- this isn't clear to me yet.
XT is programmed to create a separate currency and network, so it is not Bitcoin.

How do you know that there is no consensus?

Consensus is a high bar. It is not the same as a majority. In general, consensus means that there is near-unanimity. In the very particular case of a hardfork, "consensus" means "there is no noticeable probability that the hardfork will cause the Bitcoin economy to split into two or more non-negligible pieces".
I know almost for certain that there is no consensus to the change in XT because Bitcoin core developers Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it. That's enough to block consensus. And it works both ways: if Gavin and Mike are strongly opposed to Pieter's BIP, then this will also block consensus on that BIP.
Other than the core devs, big Bitcoin companies (especially Coinbase, BitPay, and exchanges) could block consensus, as could large groups of average users who are collectively capable of making reasonable arguments and exerting economic force (probably not just random unknown people complaining about nothing).
Even though consensus is such a high bar, I think that in practice any hardfork that gets consensus among the Bitcoin Core devs and makes it into Bitcoin Core has a good chance of succeeding. But again, the developers would just be spearheading the effort, and many others could block them if necessary.

But with such a high bar, 8 MB blocks will be impossible!

If consensus can never be reached on one particular hardfork proposal, then the hardfork should never occur. Just because you want something doesn't mean that it's ever reasonable for you to hijack Bitcoin from the people who don't want it, even if your side is the majority (which it isn't in this case). This isn't some democratic country where you can always get your way with sufficient politicking. Get consensus, live without the change, or create your own altcoin.
Hard forks are supposed to be hard. While some hard forks will probably be necessary in the long run, these hard forks will need to have consensus and be done properly or Bitcoin will die due to the economy being constantly shattered into several pieces, or as a side-effect of forcing through technically unsound changes that the majority of experts disagree with (like XT's 8MB block size).

Don't most experts want 8 MB blocks soon?

Not by any reasonable idea of "most experts" I can think of. For example, among people with expert flair on /Bitcoin, AFAIK any large near-term increase is opposed by nullc, petertodd, TheBlueMatt, luke-jr, pwuille, adam3us, maaku7, and laanwj. A large near-term increase is supported by gavinandresen, jgarzik, mike_hearn, and MeniRosenfeld. (Those 12 people are everyone with expert flair.)
I've heard concerns that some experts who oppose any large near-term increase have conflicts of interest. But many of them have been expressing the same concerns for years, so it's unlikely that any recent possible conflict of interest is influencing them. Also, if they believed that increasing the max block size would help Bitcoin as a whole, what reason would they have to prevent this? I don't see the incentive.
We don't need to trust the above list of experts, of course. But I for one have found the conservative position's arguments to be much more convincing than the huge-increase position's arguments. It's not reasonable to say, "You know a lot more than I do, and I don't see any fault in your arguments, but you must be trying to trick me due to this potential conflict of interest, so I'm going to ignore you."

Who are you working for?

I am not an employee of anyone but myself. As far as I know my only incentives for engaging in this policy are to make Bitcoin as strong as possible for ideological reasons, and in the long-term to increase the Bitcoin price. When I make policies, I do so because I believe that they are right. I am not being paid for my work on /Bitcoin or for creating certain policies.
It would have been far easier for me to simply allow XT. If I was a politician or a business, I probably would have bowed to community demands already. And on several occasions I have very seriously considered the possibility that I could be wrong here and the community right. But in the end I just don't see any way to both reasonably and consistently deal with XT and cases similar to XT except to ban them on /Bitcoin. Additionally, I am further motivated by my knowledge that a "hostile hardfork" like the one in XT is very harmful for Bitcoin no matter what the change entails, and that the change in XT is in fact amazingly bad.

See also

See my previous posts on this subject and the discussion in their child comments. Keep in mind that my comments are often downvoted to the point of being hidden by default.
Also, someone who could be Satoshi posted here. This email address was actually used by Satoshi before he left, and the email apparently did come from that email address legitimately (not a spoof). Whether he's actually Satoshi or not, I agree with what he's saying.

About majoritarianism

Just because many people want something doesn't make it right. There is example after example of this in history. You might reasonably believe that democracy is the best we can do in government (though I disagree), but it's not the best we can do with private and independent forums on the free market.
If you disagree with /Bitcoin policy, you can do one of these things:
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
The purpose of moderation is to make the community a good one, which sometimes includes causing people to leave.

This thread

You can post comments about moderation policy here, but nowhere else.
submitted by theymos to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The root reason that Eth price becomes so high, and that's what LTC failed to gain.

Many of you may have no clue why ETH price becomes so high, and steadily rising. You may see the reason as ICO(s) or some dispensable innovations. That's superficial understanding.
The root reason is people, is community. Actually, Eth gained those people who should have come into Litecoin community.
What happened to Eth community in the past year, especially in the past 6 months?
Since the three most respected Bitcoin devs --- Gavin, Jeff, Mike Hearn ---- were defeated and expelled by Vladimir colluding with Blockstream Core devs, directly or indirectly, the Bitcoin community actually split, although Theymos' propagation machine soon described them as bad guys who had no positive contribution thus successfully maintained so-called "united". The number of accounts that were banned by Theymos might exceed that by all other reddit subs together in the past three years.
How did BSCore defeat Gavin(s)? Because they flew to China to sign an agreement with BIG miners, that was HK agreement (SegWit + 2MB). As you know, Bitcoin world has a tradition of "hashrate matters". So Gavin(s) admitted failure and quit.
Later, according to HK agreement, Luke proposed “blocklimit lift proposal", where we first decrease the blocklimit to 300K and then raise it back to 1M around ~2024. Core often cited this proposal as an example to tell newbies that Core really tried to raise the limit but no one accepted it.
Miners refused to accept it, So BSCore refused to keep the promise in HKA. BSCore spread some excuse, or lies, to explain it. One lie is that Chinese miners broke the HKA first.
Breaking promise was not the case, the case was that we could not see any possibility of bigger block.
If you read posts on bitcoin or twitter, you may think big blockers are the minority, yet, the more you read, you will be shocked that nearly all Bitcoiners are big blockers. That is, people who really cherish Bitcoin and its long-term success are nearly all bigger blockers, from 2009 to now. Satoshi explicitly said so and even wrote some lines of code for it. The censorship of Theymos is very risky and heavy. And the lies, misinformation propaganda there are very effective. Most importantly, all we intend to see Core devs as good people without any doubt. i.e. I was 100% pro-Core 1.5 months ago.
But, no lies can last forever. More and more people found BSCore not only unreasonable but evil. Coinbase, after fought for bigger block and thus was spammed lies to attack by BSCore shills with censorship and the whole community was indifference, finally shifted its focus to Eth. Similarly, more and more Bitcoiners/devs shifted to other coins, mainly Eth, after they opened their eyes to see the miserable reality that Core team had been hijacked by BS and the Bitcoin community wouldn't do anything.
So, why it's Eth, not Ltc?
Partially because of the creator(s) and leading dev groups. The creator of ETH has been quite reasonable in this block size debate, and they were alway very eager to embrace those frustrated Bitcoiners who lost hope on Bitcoin. Litecoin should have been the 1st choice, but as we know, Charlie Lee followed Bitcoin Core all the time and saw big blockers and miners as enemies with ill-intent, and that's the reason why he was shocked at the round table that miners only asked for decent blocklimit lift to keep the fee low. Litecoin author(s) did not do anything wrong intentionally, but they missed a grand chance.
Those Bitcoiners were real Bitcoiners, who knew how to help a coin gain long-term userbase, and who can see the potential and the lies earlier than others. They were the backbone of Bitcoin community. Today Bitcoin has already lost some of them.
They helped Eth build REAL community, and the impact would be seen, sooner or later. Actually, now we all have seen it.
Earlier this year, Roger Ver successfully persuaded Chinese BIG miners to propose BU. BU failed, not because it's hard fork, but because it was a bit reckless and not prepared well. But the impact of the BU war was huge. In essence, it accelerated the inevitable process that big blockers knew how evil the Core was. And now that the Bitcoin community was still indifference, many Bitcoiners lost confidence in Bitcoin and went to Eth, one after another.
As the average fee passed $0.5, even the dullest bitcoiners became uncomfortable. This, as well as the ridiculously reckless fake UASF that was proposed by one Litecoin dev, all waked up many Bitcoiners. So the price of Eth soared.
Disclosure: my holdings...~95% BTC ~5% LTC
submitted by webitcoiners to btc [link] [comments]

Read: An open letter to bitcoin miner

https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
Dear Bitcoin Miner,
My name is Jonald, and I am a Bitcoin investor.
I bought my first Bitcoins in 2013 and have been active on the Bitcointalk forum since March, 2014. I’m also a small business owner that actually uses Bitcoin for
Since Bitcoin investors and miners need each other to succeed, I wanted to take a minute to reach out to you, and send a sincere message from a “real Bitcoiner”. I’ll cut right to the chase:
I’m concerned. I believe we urgently need to find a scaling solution, and I believe the best solution is to increase the blocksize.
At least, hear me out.
Why Should You Listen to Me?
There’s a huge amount of misinformation, dishonesty, and political agendas attached to the Great Scaling Debate. The situation is serious and there’s a lot at stake here.
I am not beholden to any special interests. No one is paying me to write this. I am not a contributor to any Bitcoin projects, but I am quite familiar with the scaling topic because I’ve been following it for some time now, and I am knowledgeable enough to clearly understand the technical details.
I’ve heard all the arguments from every side of the debate, and I want to give you my honest, unbiased, unfiltered understanding of the situation.
Let’s Start At the Beginning
In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published a paper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Everybody knows this, but the exact title needs to be repeated because today, even the most basic facets of Bitcoin are being challenged. Should Bitcoin really be “cash” or instead “digital gold”? And if we follow Satoshi’s plan, is it really peer to peer?
These questions come not so much from open-minded inquiry, but rather from a biased agenda. This would have been inconceivable a few years ago, but now things have become so political, that certain people even want to re-write the Bitcoin whitepaper.
(Attempting to re-write history has always been a favorite tactic of tyrannical elites.)
Satoshi’s Vision to Scale Bitcoin
Regardless of “which side” of the scaling debate you are on, it should not be contested that Satoshi always planned for and advocated for simple, on-chain scaling.
When asked how Bitcoin would scale to Visa-like levels, he said:
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
Source
Disturbingly, this simple quote from Satoshi was moderated (deleted) from the bitcoin reddit page. I’ll revisit the censorship issue in a moment.
Another important fact is that the current blocksize limit of 1mb was intended to be a temporary measure. This was something ‘everyone’ knew before the debate became politicized.
One of the earliest code reviewers, Ray Dillinger, explained that he, Hal Finey, and Satoshi all agreed the limit was to be temporary.
Satoshi also provided the means to raise the limit with his famous quote:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
Here is one more explanation from Satoshi, in an email to Mike Hearn, about why Bitcoin never hits a scaling ceiling.
Sure, Satoshi isn’t God. The point isn’t to appeal to his authority, but simply to remember that Bitcoin always had a scaling plan in place from the beginning.
…But the “Core Devs” Had Other Ideas.
The history of the current crop of Bitcoin Core developers has been already summarized and described elsewhere.
Explanations have been given for the unproductive scaling conferences, the broken Hong Kong agreements, and so on, but it should be extremely clear to everyone, based on years of their behavior (and even their own words), that the Core group does not want to scale Bitcoin with a simple blocksize increase.
In fact, they (and their supporters) have done everything in their power to prevent this, including engaging in massive censorship.
Their primary arguments are as follows:
It is problematic to raise the limit because it requires a hard fork, which is difficult to coordinate.Bitcoin nodes should be as inexpensive to run as possible, otherwise the decentralization of Bitcoin will be threatened.Without a constraint on the blocksize, Bitcoin won’t be secure once subsidies (block rewards) decline.
None of These Arguments Have Sufficient Merit to Forestall a Blocksize Increase
I am not saying the arguments are entirely without merit. Few things in life are ever 100% black-and-white. But we have to weigh the merits of these positions against the alternatives, and against other factors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Let’s take one at a time:
The “Hard Forks Are Dangerous” Myth
This was a prominent talking point in 2014–2015. However, the truth is that hard forks (HF) are not necessarily dangerous, especially if they occur with a clear majority of hashing power supporting the upgraded consensus rules.
The previous group of developers, including Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, and Mike Hearn, all supported upgrading Bitcoin with hard forks.
Initially, the discussion was whether the new maximum blocksize would be 2MB, 4MB, or 8MB. What begin as a minor difference of opinions between the miners somehow snowballed into a potent meme that consensus over scaling was going to be difficult.
The developers starting adding their own opinions about hard forks, creating additional friction. Yes, it is easy to claim there is contention when you are among those being contentious!
Core has no official leadership positions or governance structure. Because of this, it has been easy to justify inaction by simply concluding that “there’s no consensus”. And since they control the reference code repository, their refusal to raise the limit effects everyone else.
In practice, Core does have leaders. How else can it be explained that segwit was merged into the code (even if not activated) with practically no public debate whatsoever?
On a side note, prominent Core developers have denied that Core decides what code is published, and have denied there is any leadership. This is an example of the kind of constant misinformation that is being generated on a daily basis.
Back to the HF issue:
Many altcoins like Monero have regular hard forks. Coordination between major players in an ecosystem is not a big challenge if everyone is on the same page.
So far, I have not heard of a single problem that an altcoin had in performing a network upgrade via hard fork. So, there is evidence that they can be done safely.
In addition, if Core admits in their roadmap that eventually the blocksize will need to be increased, then why not do it now when it is badly needed? There is no logical reason why it would be more risky now rather than later.
Decentralization Myths
There are actually several myths surrounding the issue of decentralization. Let’s address the obvious ones:
The most ludicrous is the “all users should be running full nodes” idea.
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’. Only mining nodes secure and extend Bitcon’s distributed ledger.
The white paper explains why most users do not need to run full nodes:
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he’s convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it’s timestamped in. He can’t check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it… …Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
The idea that a lot of non-mining full nodes will make the network more decentralized (because they can make sure the miners are behaving) is erroneous, because an SPV client can already query the network’s nodes. Generally, there would only be a problem if a majority mining of nodes were colluding dishonestly, in which case Bitcoin would be already broken.
A more valid concern is that as nodes become more expensive, eventually only large corporations will run nodes. It is true that node costs will increase over time as the network grows. However, storage, bandwidth, and processing capabilities are also constantly increasing.
Just as important: By the time that capacity increases — lets say from 3 TPS (transactions per second) to 30 TPS — the network will be so large that it likely won’t be any less decentralized, even if it costs more to run a node.
At 3000 TPS, Bitcoin would be highly dominant globally, and making use of the millions of datacenters and servers available worldwide. This was always the plan.
The Alternative Vision of Bitcoin Holds Decentralization Risks That Are Worse
Many users are not aware of the decentralization risks that come with the small-node/small-block vision of Bitcoin. Core’s vision for Bitcoin is to transform the peer-to-peer cash system into some kind of settlement network.
While this would be a way to keep node costs minimal, most users would be economically forced off the main chain because they cannot compete with institutions for fees. They would then need to get permission from trusted third parties to transact.
In my opinion, this represents a much more dangerous form of centralization than bigger blocks and expensive nodes.
The Fee-Market Failure Myth
The third primary argument of the small-block philosophy is that eventually, block rewards will run out, and mining fees will be the sole source of funding security. They then claim that without limiting the supply of transaction space, miners will be hopelessly caught in a tragedy-of-the-commons price war, with the users paying rock bottom fees, leading to a collapse of commercial mining.
There’s a few problems with this argument.
First of all, there is a natural market for every good and service in the world. There have been many price wars, but nothing with high demand ever stops being produced.
The concern that the network hashrate will become too low is based on several assumptions and variables, including the number of daily transactions, the willingness of the users to wait for confirmations, the willingness of the users to pay small amounts, the behavior of the miners, the fee policies set by various wallets, the emergent consensus on acceptable fees by the mining community, and other factors, including what actually is “too low” of a network hashrate in the first place.
The hypothetical failure of the natural fee market depends on all these assumptions combining into an unfavorable outcome, as well as the inability of the system to adjust itself favorably using any of these factors.
But, by far the biggest reason that this argument is bunk, is that it will be decades before the majority of the subsidies actually disappear.
Pure Foolishness: Overplanning the Future While Ignoring Urgent Issues Today
Why implement a plan that might help Bitcoin in 20–30 years, if it requires you to damage the user experience and erode the adoption and network effect of Bitcoin, today?
In the case of Bitcoin, it’s completely unnecessary to plan ahead that far, and the destructive consequences are already being seen.
This is the biggest reason why Core’s position should be considered indefensible. Even if their arguments have merit, it is more important to keep Bitcoin healthy right now, stay competitive, and keep the user base growing than to prevent the problems that may or may not happen later.
Even worse, those prevention plans work in direct opposition to the short term goals!
It is no less insane than demanding a bedridden hospital patient, badly in need of rest, to immediately go outside and start running laps because “exercise will help you live longer”.
What About Segwit?
It is my understanding that at “the Hong Kong meeting”, the miners agreed to Segwit PLUS a hardfork blocksize increase because they didn’t trust the Core team enough to offer satisfactory scaling in a timely manner.
I think their decision was smart. Core cannot be trusted. However, if Core changed their mind today, and agreed to the 2MB+Segwit, I would support that as a compromise to break the impasse.
They seem to be unwilling to do this.
Since miners are unwilling to accept segwit on its own, and since Core will not compromise, the only logical alternative is bigger blocks, which is the best option regardless.
What Core Wants
You may be wondering: How is it possible for people as intelligent as the Bitcoin Core developers to fail to see the obvious mistakes in their thinking?
American author Upton Sinclair’s famous quote comes to mind:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
The Core team and their supporters want to change Bitcoin into a settlement network. They will deny this, but in my opinion, all of their actions point to this logical conclusion.
This is why they are against on chain scaling, and why segwit offers as little of it as possible while supporting their “HF are bad” narrative.
Additionally, I believe they also want to control public opinion by employing key individuals, by their associates and moderation policies on various platforms, and with an army of trolls.
They also intimidate and punish businesses that don’t fall in line. For example, coinbase.com was delisted from bitcoin.org for supporting Bitcoin XT instead of the Core client.
Despite these shenanigans, companies do support bigger blocks and on-chain scaling.
Most importantly, they want to scare you, the miner, into believing that the community doesn’t really want big blocks and if that if you mine big blocks, you’ll be forked off to a worthless coin and left with worthless ASICs.
Do not let them intimidate you.
What the Users Want
Most users just want a Bitcoin that works. They do not want slow confirmation and high fees. Most Bitcoiners that use bitcoin frequently understand the issues and support bigger blocks.
Despite all the trolling and propaganda, users controlling actual coins vote overwhelmingly in favor of Satoshi’s scaling plan.
The “Healthy Fee Market” is Already Unhealthy
Even IF a centrally planned fee market was a good idea right now, it is being managed poorly. A “healthy” fee market should strive to provide adequate fee revenue while at the same time provide a good user experience and promote growth of the network and user base.
While miner revenue is certainly adequate, the user experience is severely degraded because of slow confirmations and high fees, and this is definitely not attractive or conducive to growing the user base.
If keeping the blocksize at 1mb was an experiment to see how the fee market would develop, it has already played out its usefulness. To keep fees at a level competitive with other coins, supply must catch up with demand (we must raise the blocksize) . But these developers seem to have no interest in doing so. They would rather carry on with their agenda than serve the users.
What About Bitcoin As a Store-of-Value or as “Digital Gold”?
The great thing about Bitcoin is that it can be both a cash-like payment system and a gold-like store of value. These two aspects enhance each other.
Exposed to the propaganda that Bitcoin can’t scale as electronic cash, some users have said “that’s ok. I’m fine with Bitcoin being digital gold only”. The problem with this thinking is that Bitcoin has competition.
If another coin is useful to store value AND to transact cheaply with, it severely undermines Bitcon’s appeal to investors. At the same time, it greatly dampens demand for actual usage.
Sure, its possible that Bitcoin could survive in some form as digital gold, but it would be at a huge disadvantage.
Small Blocks Destroy Miner Revenue
At first glance, the idea that smaller blocks are bad for mining revenue may appear incorrect, since fee rates have recently exploded based on the demand of Bitcoin transactions outpacing the supply of space in the blocks.
However, this trend cannot continue for long, since users will only pay so much. At the same time, new users and new demand are being shut out from the ecosystem.
To use an analogy: Who makes more money — the farmer in town “A” selling milk from one cow? Or the farmer in town “B” selling milk from 8 cows? Townspeople in “A” might pay more per bottle, but they’ll only pay so much for it. They will start drinking something else, drink milk less often, or import their milk from another town.
Bitcoin miners simply cannot meet the demands of users at fees they are willing to reasonably pay if blocks are restricted to 1mb… and users will find satisfactory alternatives which are quickly becoming abundant.
The situation will become even worse in the long run if Core is allowed to create “second layer solutions”, because those solutions will probably not be free, and they will further absorb the money that users are willing to spend in order to transact.
This will be bad for miners, and bad for network security. It will make bitcoin even less competitive, and money will leave the ecosystem.
Price Always Lags Behind Fundamentals
It is easy to look at a high Bitcoin price and think that everything is fine. If things were going so badly, why isn’t the price dropping?
But, price doesn’t always reflect the underlying fundamentals of a market in the short term.
In the long run, fundamentals always dictate the direction of the market. Daytraders are flat at the end of the day. Speculators come and go. In the end, it’s only the long term investors and the non-speculative demand that determines the price.
The fundamental value of Bitcoin primarily comes from its usefulness as a payment system. If that system ceases to be useful, Bitcoin will cease to be valuable.
Time To Act. Let’s Help Bitcoin Grow Again.
It’s always better to fix a problem BEFORE it gets too big. As they say, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.
If we wait until the Bitcoin price crashes because Bitcoin is unusable as a currency, it will be too late. We would have already lost serious momentum, marketshare, users, reputation, and merchants.
This is already happening, but there is still time to act.
I urge you: don’t be complacent.
You are the miner. You have the power. Start signaling for bigger blocks today, and let’s make sure Bitcoin stays #1.
Help Spread the Word
If you’re not a miner, but a concerned investor like myself, then please spread this message far and wide, and ask the miners and pools that you know for bigger blocks.
Addendum
This article is available in several foreign language formats:
Chinese Spanish Japanese German Russian
https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
submitted by german_bitcoiner to btc [link] [comments]

Will Bitcoin Futures Ruin Bitcoin? Bitcoin Climbs Past $8500! Bitcoin Cash Back On Track Lighthouse: A development retrospective - Mike Hearn - Zürich Goodbye Coinbase  Bitcoin Maximalists Buying ETH?  EthTrader Is Dying  PayPal Quits Libra  More!

Bitcoin slid by 10 percent on Friday after one of its lead developers, Mike Hearn, said in a blogpost that he was ending his involvement with the cryptocurrency and selling all of his remaining ... Bitcoin dev Mike Hearn quits. Close. 19. Posted by. u/qznc. 3 years ago. Archived. Bitcoin dev Mike Hearn quits. Mike Hearn announced his (personal) resolution of the Bitcoin experiment: 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 ... Bitcoin slid by 10 percent on Friday after one of its lead developers, Mike Hearn, said in a blogpost that he was ending his involvement with the cryptocurrency and selling all of his remaining holdings because it had In a detailed, no-holds-barred blog post, long-time Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn announced his withdrawal from the Bitcoin project and revealed his concerns regarding the future of Bitcoin: “…despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly.” Bitcoin slid by 10 percent on Friday after one of its lead developers, Mike Hearn, said in a blogpost that he was ending his involvement with the cryptocurrency and selling all of his remaining ...

[index] [8645] [29900] [18133] [17858] [15733] [35517] [32262] [7012] [24196] [31735]

Will Bitcoin Futures Ruin Bitcoin?

#bitcoin #ethereum #cryptocurrency #blockchain #crypto #economics #investing #trading #futurism #cryptonews #btc #eth #eos #litecoin #technology. Category People & Blogs; Show more Show less ... Mike Hearn, Bitcoin Core Developer NBC2014 - Duration: 29:31. ... Oil Price is BELOW $0! Oil Prices Go Negative! What Now? - Duration: 18:26. Financial Education 168,943 views. New; 18:26 ... Also discuss crowdfunding platform Lighthouse, developed by Mike Hearn and Olivier Janssens at end video that was originally invented to solve funding problem in Bitcoin Core and I believe would ... Bitcoin Lead Mike Hearn developer quits bitcoin saying it 'has failed'. Watch the full video to know more insights Subscribe to Times Of India's Youtube chan... Bitcoin Climbs Past $8500! Become a CryptosRus INSIDER to gain exclusive insight on the market, get reviews and analysis on undervalued cryptocurrencies and get access to valuable tools that will ...

#