Hard Fork and Soft Fork Explained, Examples of Bitcoin ...

Fragility of Bitcoin under Classic vs Core vs Unlimited vs XT

Planning for an attack on the network is always something bitcoiners should be strategizing and prioritizing. The bitcoin network is a social network of code producers, miners, investors, users. The individual and interactions among these elements determine the ultimate design of bitcoin, or the progression of bitcoin code and thus bitcoin's role in society. What blocksize scheme will lead to the least fragility of the network against attacks?
sorts of attacks: 51%, flooding (ddos), sybil, others
submitted by Geronimomo to btc [link] [comments]

Fragility of Bitcoin under Classic vs Core vs Unlimited vs XT /r/btc

Fragility of Bitcoin under Classic vs Core vs Unlimited vs XT /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: For Bitcoin Enthusiasts: Where do you stand on the Core vs. Unlimited/XT/Classic divide? /r/Anarcho_Capitalism

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: For Bitcoin Enthusiasts: Where do you stand on the Core vs. Unlimited/XT/Classic divide? /Anarcho_Capitalism submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Is Crypto Currency truly at risk due to Quantum Computers, and what can you do about it?

Is Crypto Currency truly at risk due to Quantum Computers, and what can you do about it?

There is no denying that the Quantum revolution is coming. Security protocols for the internet, banking, telecommunications, etc... are all at risk, and your Bitcoins (and alt-cryptos) are next!
This article is not really about quantum computers[i], but, rather, how they will affect the future of cryptocurrency, and what steps a smart investor will take. Since this is a complicated subject, my intention is to provide just enough relevant information without being too “techy.”

The Quantum Evolution

In 1982, Nobel winning physicist, Richard Feynman, hypothesized how quantum computers[ii] would be used in modern life.
Just one year later, Apple released the “Apple Lisa”[iii] – a home computer with a 7.89MHz processor and a whopping 5MB hard drive, and, if you enjoy nostalgia, it used 5.25in floppy disks.
Today, we walk around with portable devices that are thousands of times more powerful, and, yet, our modern day computers still work in a simple manner, with simple math, and simple operators[iv]. They now just do it so fast and efficient that we forget what’s happening behind the scenes.
No doubt, the human race is accelerating at a remarkable speed, and we’ve become obsessed with quantifying everything - from the everyday details of life to the entire universe[v]. Not only do we know how to precisely measure elementary particles, we also know how to control their actions!
Yet, even with all this advancement, modern computers cannot “crack” cryptocurrencies without the use of a great deal more computing power, and since it’s more than the planet can currently supply, it could take millions, if not billions, of years.
However, what current computers can’t do, quantum computers can!
So, how can something that was conceptualized in the 1980’s, and, as of yet, has no practical application, compromise cryptocurrencies and take over Bitcoin?
To best answer this question, let’s begin by looking at a bitcoin address.

What exactly is a Bitcoin address?

Well, in layman terms, a Bitcoin address is used to send and receive Bitcoins, and looking a bit closer (excuse the pun), it has two parts:[vi]
A public key that is openly shared with the world to accept payments. A public key that is derived from the private key. The private key is made up of 256 bits of information in a (hopefully) random order. This 256 bit code is 64 characters long (in the range of 0-9/a-f) and further compressed into a 52 character code (using RIPEMD-160).
NOTE: Although many people talk about Bitcoin encryption, Bitcoin does not use Encryption. Instead, Bitcoin uses a hashing algorithm (for more info, please see endnote below[vii]).
Now, back to understanding the private key:
The Bitcoin address “1EHNa6Q4Jz2uvNExL497mE43ikXhwF6kZm” translates to a private key of “5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreAnchuDf” which further translates to a 256 bit private key of “0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001” (this should go without saying, but do not use this address/private key because it was compromised long ago.) Although there are a few more calculations that go behind the scenes, these are the most relevant details.
Now, to access a Bitcoin address, you first need the private key, and from this private key, the public key is derived. With current computers, it’s classically impractical to attempt to find a private key based on a public key. Simply put, you need the private key to know the public key.
However, it has already been theorized (and technically proven) that due to private key compression, multiple private keys can be used to access the same public key (aka address). This means that your Bitcoin address has multiple private keys associated with it, and, if someone accidentally discovers or “cracks” any one of those private keys, they have access to all the funds in that specific address.
There is even a pool of a few dedicated people hunting for these potential overlaps[viii], and they are, in fact, getting very efficient at it. The creator of the pool also has a website listing every possible Bitcoin private key/address in existence[ix], and, as of this writing, the pool averages 204 trillion keys per day!
But wait! Before you get scared and start panic selling, the probability of finding a Bitcoin address containing funds (or even being used) is highly unlikely – nevertheless, still possible!
However, the more Bitcoin users, the more likely a “collision” (finding overlapping private/public key pairs)! You see, the security of a Bitcoin address is simply based on large numbers! How large? Well, according to my math, 1.157920892373x1077 potential private keys exist (that number represents over 9,500 digits in length! For some perspective, this entire article contains just over 14,000 characters. Therefore, the total number of Bitcoin addresses is so great that the probability of finding an active address with funds is infinitesimal.

So, how do Quantum Computers present a threat?

At this point, you might be thinking, “How can a quantum computer defeat this overwhelming number of possibilities?” Well, to put it simple; Superposition and Entanglement[x].
Superposition allows a quantum bit (qbit) to be in multiple states at the same time. Entanglement allows an observer to know the measurement of a particle in any location in the universe. If you have ever heard Einstein’s quote, “Spooky Action at a Distance,” he was talking about Entanglement!
To give you an idea of how this works, imagine how efficient you would be if you could make your coffee, drive your car, and walk your dog all at the same time, while also knowing the temperature of your coffee before drinking, the current maintenance requirements for your car, and even what your dog is thinking! In a nutshell, quantum computers have the ability to process and analyze countless bits of information simultaneously – and so fast, and in such a different way, that no human mind can comprehend!
At this stage, it is estimated that the Bitcoin address hash algorithm will be defeated by quantum computers before 2028 (and quite possibly much sooner)! The NSA has even stated that the SHA256 hash algorithm (the same hash algorithm that Bitcoin uses) is no longer considered secure, and, as a result, the NSA has now moved to new hashing techniques, and that was in 2016! Prior to that, in 2014, the NSA also invested a large amount of money in a research program called “Penetrating Hard Targets project”[xi] which was used for further Quantum Computer study and how to break “strong encryption and hashing algorithms.” Does NSA know something they’re not saying or are they just preemptively preparing?
Nonetheless, before long, we will be in a post-quantum cryptography world where quantum computers can crack crypto addresses and take all the funds in any wallet.

What are Bitcoin core developers doing about this threat?

Well, as of now, absolutely nothing. Quantum computers are not considered a threat by Bitcoin developers nor by most of the crypto-community. I’m sure when the time comes, Bitcoin core developers will implement a new cryptographic algorithm that all future addresses/transactions will utilize. However, will this happen before post-quantum cryptography[xii]?
Moreover, even after new cryptographic implementation, what about all the old addresses? Well, if your address has been actively used on the network (sending funds), it will be in imminent danger of a quantum attack. Therefore, everyone who is holding funds in an old address will need to send their funds to a new address (using a quantum safe crypto-format). If you think network congestion is a problem now, just wait…
Additionally, there is the potential that the transition to a new hashing algorithm will require a hard fork (a soft fork may also suffice), and this could result in a serious problem because there should not be multiple copies of the same blockchain/ledger. If one fork gets attacked, the address on the other fork is also compromised. As a side-note, the blockchain Nebulas[xiii] will have the ability to modify the base blockchain software without any forks. This includes adding new and more secure hashing algorithms over time! Nebulas is due to be released in 2018.

Who would want to attack Bitcoin?

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency represent a threat to the controlling financial system of our modern economy. Entire countries have outright banned cryptocurrency[xiv] and even arrested people[xv], and while discrediting it, some countries are copying cryptocurrency to use (and control) in their economy[xvi]!
Furthermore, Visa[xvii], Mastercard[xviii], Discover[xix], and most banks act like they want nothing to do with cryptocurrency, all the while seeing the potential of blockchain technology and developing their own[xx]. Just like any disruptive technology, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have their fair share of enemies!
As of now, quantum computers are being developed by some of the largest companies in the world, as well as private government agencies.
No doubt, we will see a post-quantum cryptography world sooner than most realize. By that point, who knows how long “3 letter agencies” will have been using quantum technology - and what they’ll be capable of!

What can we do to protect ourselves today?

Of course, the best option is to start looking at how Bitcoin can implement new cryptographic features immediately, but it will take time, and we have seen how slow the process can be just for scaling[xxi].
The other thing we can do is use a Bitcoin address only once for outgoing transactions. When quantum computers attack Bitcoin (and other crypto currencies), their first target will be addresses that have outgoing transactions on the blockchain that contain funds.
This is due to the fact that when computers first attempt to crack a Bitcoin address, the starting point is when a transaction becomes public. In other words, when the transaction is first signed – a signed transaction is a digital signature derived from the private key, and it validates the transaction on the network. Compared to classical computers, quantum computers can exponentially extrapolate this information.
Initially, Bitcoin Core Software might provide some level of protection because it only uses an address once, and then sends the remaining balance (if any) to another address in your keypool. However, third party Bitcoin wallets can and do use an address multiple times for outgoing transactions. For instance, this could be a big problem for users that accept donations (if they don’t update their donation address every time they remove funds). The biggest downside to Bitcoin Core Software is the amount of hard-drive space required, as well as diligently retaining an up-to-date copy of the entire blockchain ledger.
Nonetheless, as quantum computers evolve, they will inevitably render SHA256 vulnerable, and although this will be one of the first hash algorithms cracked by quantum computers, it won’t be the last!

Are any cryptocurrencies planning for the post-quantum cryptography world?

Yes, indeed, there are! Here is a short list of ones you may want to know more about:

Full disclosure:

Although I am in no way associated with any project listed above, I do hold coins in all as well as Bitcoin, Litecoin and many others.
The thoughts above are based on my personal research, but I make no claims to being a quantum scientist or cryptographer. So, don’t take my word for anything. Instead, do your own research and draw your own conclusions. I’ve included many references below, but there are many more to explore.
In conclusion, the intention of this article is not to create fear or panic, nor any other negative effects. It is simply to educate. If you see an error in any of my statements, please, politely, let me know, and I will do my best to update the error.
Thanks for reading!

References

[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhHMJCUmq28 – A great video explaining quantum computers.
[ii] https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_97/journal/vol4/spb3/ - A brief history of quantum computing.
[iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa - More than you would ever want to know about the Apple Lisa.
[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpIctyqH29Q&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNlUrzyH5r6jN9ulIgZBpdo - Want to learn more about computer science? Here is a great crash course for it!
[v] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/quantify - What does quantify mean?
[vi] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Private_key - More info about Bitcoin private keys.
[vii] https://www.securityinnovationeurope.com/blog/page/whats-the-difference-between-hashing-and-encrypting - A good example of the deference between Hash and Encryption
[viii] https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/stats - The Large Bitcoin Collider.
[ix] http://directory.io/ - A list of every possible Bitcoin private key. This website is a clever way of converting the 64 character uncompressed key to the private key 128 at a time. Since it is impossible to save all this data in a database and search, it is not considered a threat! It’s equated with looking for a single needle on the entire planet.
[x] https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/quantum-computing-101#Superposition-and-entanglement – Brief overview of Superposition and Entanglement.
[xi] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html?utm_term=.e05a9dfb6333 – A review of the Penetrating Hard Targets project.
[xii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography - Explains post-quantum cryptography.
[xiii] https://www.nebulas.io/ - The nebulas project has some amazing technology planned in their roadmap. They are currently in testnet stage with initial launch expected taking place in a few weeks. If you don’t know about Nebulas, you should check them out. [xiv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country_or_territory - Country’s stance on crypto currencies.
[xv] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/30/venezuela-is-one-of-the-worlds-most-dangerous-places-to-mine-bitcoin.html - Don’t be a miner in Venezuela!
[xvi] http://www.newsweek.com/russia-bitcoin-avoid-us-sanctions-cryptocurrency-768742 - Russia’s plan for their own crypto currency.
[xvii] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/01/05/visa-locks-bitcoin-payment-cards-crackdown-card-issue - Recent attack from visa against crypto currency.
[xviii] https://www.ccn.com/non-government-digital-currency-junk-says-mastercard-ceo-rejecting-bitcoin/ - Mastercards position about Bitcoin.
[xix] http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/discover-joins-visa-mastercard-barring-bitcoin-support/ - Discovers position about Bitcoin.
[xx] http://fortune.com/2017/10/20/mastercard-blockchain-bitcoin/ - Mastercard is making their own blockchain.
[xxi] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/ - News about Bitcoin capacity. Not a lot of news…
[xxii] https://learn.iota.org/faq/what-makes-iota-quantum-secure - IOTA and quantum encryption.
[xxiii] https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/191.pdf - The whitepaper of Winternitz One-Time Signature Scheme
[xxiv] https://cardanoroadmap.com/ - The Cardano project roadmap.
[xxv] https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/490 - More about the BLISS hash system.
[xxvi] https://www.ethereum.org/ - Home of the Ethereum project.
[xxvii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-3#Security_against_quantum_attacks – SHA3 hash algorithm vs quantum computers.
[xxviii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_signature - Lamport signature information.
[xxix] https://theqrl.org/ - Home of the Quantum Resistant Ledger project.
submitted by satoshibytes to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come

On August 1, Bitcoin resumed its original roadmap, scaling on-chain towards global adoption as Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash.
It’s been just 3 and a half months since Bitcoin Cash broke away from BTC in order avoid a software mutation called Segwit, and to restore progress and growth to the ecosystem.
After a recent price rally that saw us reach 0.5 BTC ($3000), the reality is setting in that an overnight ‘flippening’ scenario that some people hoped for is unlikely, and that we have a longer road ahead.
It’s really important to remember how much has been achieved in such a short time.
Let’s take a moment to reflect on how far we’ve come as a young community.
July:
August:
September:
October:
November:
This rate and scale of industry adoption is unprecedented.
With every BTC holder receiving an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, and with the price over $1300, the rate and scale of user adoption is unprecedented.
With fast, reliable transactions and fees that are less than 1 cent, and with both BitPay & Coinbase hinting at a full Bitcoin Cash integration, the rate and scale of merchant adoption will be unprecedented.
With unprecedented industry, user and merchant adoption, it’s only a matter of time until Bitcoin Cash becomes the default medium of exchange and store of value cryptocurrency.
The old Bitcoin is back. You can feel it. It’s the resurgence of a grassroots movement not seen for years. People are putting Bitcoin Cash posters in the streets, handing out leaflets, tipping strangers a few dollars online, and asking in forums how they can contribute to the community.
Just in the last couple of days a ‘Bitcoin Cash Fund’ was established, to assist with marketing and projects. The initial goal was $200 to make a short animated advert, but over $17,000 has been donated already. All of this positivity and energy is inspiring.
While businesses are being forced to abandon BTC due to exorbitant and skyrocketing fees (upwards of $10), they’re being cheered on every day as they embrace Bitcoin Cash.
The original vision is still alive. As an early bitcoiner, I’ve never been more optimistic.
Make sure you involve yourself in the community, we’re just getting started :)
Reddit: BTC or BitcoinCash
Twitter: twitter.com/BITCOINCASH
Website: bitcoincash.org
Dev: Mailing List
Also posted on Yours: Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come
submitted by cryptomic to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

Mindset of an Attacker

Disclaimer: The post may be slightly biased against SV, but I'm aiming to keep a neutral tone. I'll be mostly quoting pro-SV organization SBI Crypto who are (to my knowledge) behind a very large portion of hashrate. The post is only intended to document what the strategy from SBI (and pro-SV) side is.
Thus, it should be informational for both sides and anyone else interested.

Intro

On 15th of Nov, there'll be a fork between the different BCH implementations. The implementations ABC, BU, XT, and Flowee are in favour of continuing with the BCH roadmap - while SV is in disagreement and wishes to push a different path.
Recently, SV has acquired a significant amount of hashrate, which you can check on the following URL: https://cash.coin.dance/blocks
On 30th of Aug, the new SV client was first announced by nChain, as well as a new miningpool to go along with it. ( https://news.bitcoin.com/nchain-publishes-bitcoin-sv-alpha-release/ )
The most prominent organizations that have been active in supporting the SV client have been Coingeek (mining pool & news site), nChain, and SBI Crypto (crypto division of biggest banking conglomerate in Japan).
To elaborate on how they plan to push SV client into fruition, I've visited the blog of Jerry Chan, the head of Crypto in SBI Bits (SBI Crypto). If you'd like to know more about him or SBI, you can check his previous interviews on Youtube, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nBEPCSrna8
His blogposts that I'll be referring to is found at: https://www.yours.org/@wallstreettechnologist

#1 - There can be no split

But wait, I thought the intent of 15th Nov fork is to conclusively split? Already from the blog title, we can see the following:
There can be NO SPLIT of BCH -- Or the network dies!
https://www.yours.org/content/there-can-be-no-split-of-bch----or-the-network-dies--d2541010f641
And the best way to completely avoid any splits, according to him, is to simply to always follow the "Longest Chain wins" rule.
What is this solution you ask? Simply, it is "Longest Chain wins" rule. Yes, the same rule that BCH violated in order to be forced into being.
… "LCw rule" simply punishes the minority side refusing to upgrade by putting ever increasing risk on the block rewards that they have earned until they lose it all, all the way back to the first block that they deviated from the majority from.
Furthermore, he very clearly states that future immutability is 100% a goal.
...it is time for BCH to show the world that a totally immutable, totally unsplittable global ledger is indeed possible.

#2 - The split between SV and ABC isn't about blocksize, it's about control & approach to forking

This, it seems is the reason why the BCH upgrade of Nov has become contentious; the fact that one side believes that the protocol should not hard fork unless absolutely necessary, and should never split the ledger, while the other side believes that hard forks should be regular and often, new features should be put into the protocol, and that splitting the chain into new coins is acceptable.
https://www.yours.org/content/who-gets-the--bch--ticker-after-a-contentious-fork--801770e75240
Also, while not directly admitting themselves of doing such, he does warn of "… the false narratives of different parties vying for political control during a fork upgrade." Of course, both sides can be guilty of this.
With all this kept in mind, perhaps this means that the SV vs ABC debate has never been about technical merits?

#3 - Minority chain will be killed, by mining empty blocks

https://www.yours.org/content/bch-upgrade-and-fork-mechanics-101---what-you-should-know-about-how-bc-6c4ba61cf099
In this article, he brings a very good board game analogy in tsumego from Go.
In the game of Go, tsumego in the concept that deal with the life-or-death of a group of stones.
... similarly, after a Nakamoto Event, the minority hash chain is not-alive until it can ensure that the majority hashpower chain cannot wipe out their chain with a reasonable amount of certainty
During a Tsumego Event, the fact is that as long as the side with the majority hash make the 'best move' there is nothing that the minority side can do to stay alive.
Life-or-death. Literally force the move to kill off the player that's at a disadvantage.
For example, in the upcoming upgrade, one side is introducing a changed called CTOR. This is a new rule which enforces a certain ordering of txns in a block. After the upgrade only blocks produced abiding by the CTOR rules will be deemed valid on this chain.
But one way (I'm sure there are many) that the majority chain can make their blocks valid is simply to support the feature but only for a day or two, long enough such that all the minority miners lose enough money so that they upgrade.
Here, he literally details out the planned attack vector for the SV fork. This actually lines up with another recent thread that warned about an empty block mining attack being a possibility.
A majority hashpower attacker can simply pretend to be running the same client (or version), for long enough to accomplish their attack, and to make the minority hashpower miners be forced to upgrade.

#4 - SV aims to keep the exchange ticker

https://www.yours.org/content/who-gets-the--bch--ticker-after-a-contentious-fork--801770e75240
Here, he strongly recommends of who has the most influence of keeping the exchange ticker. He plays down the influence of exchanges, wallets, developers and users. The most important ones, according to him, are miners (hashrate) and the fork ID.
So if you (as a business) wanted to use the method in which the least amount of people would be able to dispute, the you would use a combination of method #5 and #6,
However, according to him, each of the contending forks will also attempt to keep the same fork ID
... because there actually potentially 2+ chains that will be using the original BCH fork ID, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin ABC and what I will call Bitcoin Cash Classic
Thus, if SV has the majority hashrate, and aims to keep the same fork ID, while simultaneously attacking and trying to kill off any competing chains, SV could (according to the plan) even take over the BCH ticker.
It's a bit of a longer post, but I think it's important for both pro-ABC and pro-SV users to understand these perspectives.
The blog is very insightful and I honestly had to stop myself short of making the post too long. If the feedback is positive, I might feature more highlights from the blog in a "Part 2" post.
Cheers!
submitted by homm88 to btc [link] [comments]

Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU

Running Core is like buying a Sony TV that only lets you watch Fox, because the other channels are locked away and you have to know how to solder a circuit board to see them. To change the channel, you as a layman would have to switch to a different TV made by some other manufacturer, who you may not think makes as reliable of TVs. This is because Sony believes people should only ever watch Fox "because there are dangerous channels out there" or "because since everyone needs to watch the same channel, it is our job to decide what that channel is." So the community is stuck with either watching Fox on their nice, reliable Sony TVs, or switching to all watching ABC on some more questionable TVs made by some new maker (like, in 2015 the XT team was the new maker and BIP101 was ABC).
BU (and now Classic and BitcoinEC) shatters that whole bizarre paradigm. BU is a TV that lets you tune to any channel you want, at your own risk. The community is free to converge on any channel it wants to, and since everyone in this analogy wants to watch the same channel they will coordinate to find one.
Yet people who are accustomed to Sony are so confused by the idea that the community could coordinate itself that they assume BU is, like XT, a TV that tunes to a specific channel, and they rail against that channel as dangerous. This is quite silly considering you can use BU to tune to Fox! That is, you can run BU with exactly Core settings. So you know you are being snowed there.
Although the following is hard to understand because of the fact that Satoshi introduced a meant-to-be temporary, non-controversial 1MB blocksize limit into the code, it is actually the Core devs who are tacitly proposing something bran new: By keeping the 1MB limit all these years while it gradually grew to be very controversial (due to increased Bitcoin usage), they have changed the situation from Satoshi's original one where the code didn't come with any controversial stances baked into it, to one where it does. Core has gradually moved to a lock-in model because they imagine the community to be incapable reaching consensus on its own, or at least incapable of reaching a good consensus.
By retaining the 1MB cap well past its time, they have little by little snuck in a new governance model I will call Governance by Centralized Inconvenience Barrier (GCIB). This is identical to Sony's model where they try to govern what everyone watches by making it inconvenient to change the channel (you have to know how to mod your TV or go find another maker who may not make TVs as well).
It is centralized because whatever goes into the Core repository counts as (they say) the "reference implementation," and any client that deviates from that is subject to extreme censorship on the Core mailing list as "off topic" and coincidentally the same applies on all the biggest Bitcoin forums (except this one) and bitcoin.org. Core's hope is that this new governance model will keep people from doing anything stupid and reckless, thanks to Core's paternalistic guidance. You can ironically know it is centralized because they focus on arguing that Core is somehow decentralized, using the flimsiest of reasoning: "anyone can contribute [but the committers must approve]" and "the team is decentralized because the devs live all over the world [so what?]" and "only unanimous votes among the 7 committers can make changes [that's still just an FOMC, and unanimity just means at best no changes at all and at worst total colluded central control]".
The pretzel logic even extends further, as to avoid the accusation of central control they instead say, "Fine, no changes at all." Not realizing that this effectively disallows any kind of temporary measures, including Satoshi's temporary blocksize limit. That would be insane, especially in the face of hot competition from altcoins, so the pretzel logic extends further: only soft forks are allowed, and hard forks are especially not allowed under controversy. Yet this is the ultimate in silliness, because a controversial soft fork will merely incite everyone who is against it to hard fork as a defense.
The whole paradigm where they think they can somehow "disallow" people from changing the channel (coordinating on blocksize settings without a group of devs rigging the consensus-finding) is hopelessly centralized. The whole paradigm where they think they can somehow "disallow" people from hard forking by only issuing soft forks is hopelessly centralized. The whole paradigm where Core = Bitcoin is hopelessly centralized.
BU, Classic, BitcoinEC, and soon btcd are the new bread, the "rooted" clients in the way you root an iPhone. For the purist, BitcoinEC is rooted Core, a minimal patchset. Unlike Core devs, these devs all refuse to pretend they are the determiners of what Bitcoin is. They understand that Bitcoin is not held together by trivial inconvenience barriers erected by dev teams, as that would have a trivially easy attack vector, as you can't really stop people from running a patch or modding their code in the long run even if you could do it for a while by pointing out there are some risks now due to lack of coding talent and such. They understand that the 21M coin limit is not held in place by Core devs locking down the coin issuance settings, but by the fact that the community would never tune to any channel that had a different issuance schedule. So they understand there is no danger in letting users adjust settings, because it is not the inability deviate from the herd that keeps the herd moving together, but instead the incentives involved.
It is time for Bitcoin grow up, to throw off childish things like the illusion that a group of devs are needed to set consensus, as well as the idea that that wouldn't be extremely dangerous as it would centralize control to the very extent to which it was necessary (meaning Bitcoin would barely be a thing at all; no wonder so many Core guys were longtime Bitcoin skeptics and seem to reject the idea of antifragility).
submitted by ForkiusMaximus to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) versus Bitcoin (BTC) in Simple Terms:

Trying to create a summary for someone with minimal knowledge in cryptocurrencies. Appreciate any recommendations
BITCOIN CASH (BCH) VERSUS BITCOIN (BTC) IN SIMPLE TERMS:
⁃ Liquidity: Bitcoin Cash is designed for nearly-unlimited liquidity which means you can buy and sell as much as you need and exchange for another asset quickly. Liquidity to me is the most important quality for cash and the #1 reason I am in BCH.
⁃ BCH has added on average $3.67 billion dollars to market cap per month from inception; BTC has added on average $1.17 billion to market cap per month from inception.
⁃ Roger Ver (frequency mentioned in Wall Street articles such as Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, etc) supports Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin. “Bitcoin Cash is the only fork of Bitcoin that resembles a natural continuation of the original Bitcoin invention. All Segwit chains have altered so many fundamental properties of Bitcoin that it seems a stretch to refer to any of them by the Bitcoin name.” I agree. This is very Bullish for BCH because Wall Street follows what he says. (vs Core which I have never seen mentioned in any serious investment journal).
⁃ Low fee transactions which costs cents to fractions of a cent. (versus several dollars in BTC)
⁃ Instant 0-conf transactions. 0-confirmation (0-conf) transactions allow for purchases with security that is better than credit cards before the transaction is recorded on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. 0-conf transactions take 1-2 seconds to post on the network and are the "intermediate state" of a blockchain transaction. This state lasts for 10 min before being added to the immutable blockchain ledger. (versus feature removed from BTC )
⁃ Four separate development teams: BitcoinABC, Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited (vs. Only one team with BTC which is Bitcoin Core)
⁃ Strong user base of support. Many BTC users waited for years for increased capacity in BTC and decreased fees. Creation of BCH made these users feel liberated and reinvigorated to promote the use of peer-to-peer electronic cash.
⁃ BCH upgraded Difficultly Adjustment Algorithm (DAA) which adjusts every 10 minutes (November 13th HF) based on average during last 144 blocks to ensure six blocks are mined per hour. This will make it run incredibly smooth. (vs BTC which adjusts every 2016 blocks or ever 10 days. This can be a disaster for BTC if the hashpower decreases dramatically abruptly).
⁃ BCH is uncensored (objective facts are considered) [versus Bitcoin massive censorship by Core]
More technical:
⁃ No Replace-By-Fee (RBF). Not needed with BCH because transactions are fast. RBF is a source of abuse because RBF forces one to pay higher transaction fees.
⁃ No SegWit (Segregated Witness: major security error in Bitcoin which is defined as a "chain of signatures." This opens door for potentially stealing BTC.)
⁃ No Lightning Network. No way for companies to force you to pay more for the blockchain services provided by miners that are already on the system.
submitted by BitcoinCashHoarder to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come

On August 1, Bitcoin resumed its original roadmap, scaling on-chain towards global adoption as Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash.
It’s been just 3 and a half months since Bitcoin Cash broke away from BTC in order avoid a software mutation called Segwit, and to restore progress and growth to the ecosystem.
After a recent price rally that saw us reach 0.5 BTC ($3000), the reality is setting in that an overnight ‘flippening’ scenario that some people hoped for is unlikely, and that we have a longer road ahead.
It’s really important to remember how much has been achieved in such a short time.
Let’s take a moment to reflect on how far we’ve come as a young community.
July:
August:
September:
October:
November:
This rate and scale of industry adoption is unprecedented.
With every BTC holder receiving an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, and with the price over $1300, the rate and scale of user adoption is unprecedented.
With fast, reliable transactions and fees that are less than 1 cent, and with both BitPay & Coinbase hinting at a full Bitcoin Cash integration, the rate and scale of merchant adoption will be unprecedented.
With unprecedented industry, user and merchant adoption, it’s only a matter of time until Bitcoin Cash becomes the default medium of exchange and store of value cryptocurrency.
The old Bitcoin is back. You can feel it. It’s the resurgence of a grassroots movement not seen for years. People are putting Bitcoin Cash posters in the streets, handing out leaflets, tipping strangers a few dollars online, and asking in forums how they can contribute to the community.
Just in the last couple of days a ‘Bitcoin Cash Fund’ was established, to assist with marketing and projects. The initial goal was $200 to make a short animated advert, but over $17,000 has been donated already. All of this positivity and energy is inspiring.
While businesses are being forced to abandon BTC due to exorbitant and skyrocketing fees (upwards of $10), they’re being cheered on every day as they embrace Bitcoin Cash.
The original vision is still alive. As an early bitcoiner, I’ve never been more optimistic.
Make sure you involve yourself in the community, we’re just getting started :)
Reddit: BTC or BitcoinCash
Twitter: twitter.com/BITCOINCASH
Website: bitcoincash.org
Dev: Mailing List
Also posted on Yours: Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come
submitted by cryptomic to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

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

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

A collection of evidence regarding Bitcoin's takeover and problems.

REPOSTED THIS FOR MORE VISIBILITY & FEW EDITS
On November 22 I posted this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7eszwk/links_related_to_blockstreams_takeover_of_bitcoin
On December this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7mg4tm/updated_dec_2017_a_collection_of_evidence/
On January this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7qfw2b/a_collection_of_evidence_regarding_bitcoins/
This is March update
I will be removing duplicates and off-topic content. #34 and #74 has been changed. Please give me feed back, and also recommend a new title if you guys have any idea :)
The Bitcoin Whitepaper
PDF
1 The history between btc and bitcoin
Archive link
yours.org link
2 A brief and incomplete history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Archive link
3 User posts on bitcoin about 6900 BTC that theymos stole, post gets removed.
Archive link
4 Go to /noncensored_bitcoin to see posts that have been censored in /bitcoin
5 Theymos caught red-handed - why he censors all the forums he controls, including /bitcoin
Archive link
6 User gets banned from /bitcoin for saying "A $5 fee to send $100 is absolutely ridiculous"
Archive link
7 Greg Maxwell caught using sockpuppets
Archive link
8 [Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively"](https:// np.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/)
Archive link
9 Remember how lightening network was promised to be ready by summer 2016? https://coinjournal.net/lightning-network-should-be-ready-this-summe
Archive link
10 rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains
Archive link
11 "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO
Archive link
Twitter proof
Twitter Archive link
12 September 2017 stats post of bitcoin censorship
Archive link
13 Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
Archive link
14 bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
Archive link
15 In January 2017, someone paid 0.23 cents for 1 transaction. As of December 2017, fees have peaked $40.
16 Told to kill yourself by Bitcoin for cashing out
17 Bitcoin is a captured system
18 Bot attack against bitcoin was allegedly perpetrated by its own moderator and Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell
19 Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".
20 Bitcoin Cash has got nothing new.
21 How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC
More evidence
22 Even Core developers used to support 8-100MB blocks before they work for the Bankers
Proof
23 /Bitcoin loves to call Bitcoin Cash "ChinaCoin", but do they realize that over 70% of BTC hashrate comes from China?
24 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
25 First, they said they want BCH on coinbase so they could dump it. Now they are crying about it because it's pumping.
26 Luke-Jr thinks reducing the blocksize will reduce the fees..
27 Core: Bitcoin isn't for the poor. Bitcoin Cash: we'll take them. Our fees are less than a cent. Core: BCash must die!
28 How The Banks Bought Bitcoin. The Lightning Network
29 Big Blocks Can Scale, But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
30 "Fees will drop when everyone uses Lightning Networks" is the new "Fees will drop when SegWit is activated"
31 Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls
32 The bitcoin civil war is not about block size; it's about freedom vs. authoritarianism
33 Why BCH is the real Bitcoin
34 Segwit does not block ASICBoost. SlushPool supports it.
35 We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
36 Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.
37 A explaination why Core's vision is different from the real Bitcoin vision
38 The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
39 Lighting Network was supposed to be released in 2016
40 You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction
41 They say we are trying to Kill Bitcoin. No, we are not. We are trying to save it, and make it usable for everyone, and everything. Not tomorrow. Not 6 months from now, Not 18 Months from now. NOW. That's what's going on Here.
42 Miners that want to pull out daily have to switch to BCH due to the fees
43 At $25 #BTC tx fees, if miners want to withdraw their revenue daily, they require a minimum of $140,000 worth of mining hardware to reduce the tx fee to less than 1% of their outgoings. At a $100 tx fee it requires min $560,000. Which is the centralising coin again?
44 Core developer : Bitcoin fees too high? You have invested in early tech! Have faith. Give us time.
45 A redditor even predicted the /bitcoin front page
46 Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s
47 /bitcoin is in uproar about Coinbase not implementing Segwit -> mempool mooning is single handedly Coinbase' fault. So all it takes to bring bitcoin to its knees is a single corporate entity not implementing segwit? Me thinks its not Coinbase there's something wrong with.
48 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
49 $BCH has been attacked in every way possible since it's creation. Exchanges listing it with deceiving names and abbreviations; being dumped by bitcoin holders for over 6 months; and it still managed to close every month positively, while adding numerous new wallet/exchange pairs
50 theymos claims that the whitepaper is a historical artifact not worthy of being on the sidebar of bitcoin
51 Even a Bitcoin conference can't use Bitcoin because of it's high fees
52 185% Growth in Active Addresses for BCH in 1 month, 125% for ETH, -5% for BTC
53 Shapeshift: "Sub-$100 fees unadvisable on BTC." Core supporters: "Implement Segwit already!" Shapeshift: "We did. We're the biggest user of Segwit."
54 How btc and Bitcoin see each other
55 Man who vandalized Bitmain's office hired by Blockstream
56 Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin Core compared. Just the facts
57 It was obvious from the very beginning that #Bitcoin transactions were meant to be as cheap as possible. Bitcoin Core has destroyed Bitcoin's usefulness as money by creating a system where $30 fees are celebrated. - @Bitcoin
58 User explains why Core's vision is not the real Bitcoin vision
59 Fake Tweet from the president bashes BCH on /bitcoin front page. Calling it exactly what it is will get you banned.
60 A public appeal to Michael Marquardt the original Theymos.
61 Now they are angry at the CEO of Coinbase for supporting BCH. It's like you are not allowed to have your own opinion without getting attacked.
62 bitcoin user says Bitcoin should not be used as a cryptocurrency
63 The five stages of grief, transaction fees
64 A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be
65 Warning! Theymos admitted he 'misled millions of people' yet he wanna 'leave the text as it is' to mislead more people!
66 "Wait. What? My private keys need to be on an internet-connected computer in order to use Lightning Network?"
67 a year ago Adam Back accused u/Jacktenz of exaggerated claims about fees. The truth is the claims were understated!
68 Roger Ver was not selling explosives, he was selling firecrackers.
69 Core devs pop champaigne, and openly celebrate high fees. Now core supporters blame coinbase for high fees?
70 Now that we've had a few 8MB blocks, let's dispel this centralisation myth once and for all.
71 Reddit admin sodypop on censorship in /Bitcoin: "We generally allow moderators to run their communities how they like as long as they are within our site-wide rules and moderator guidelines." Blatant censorship, hacking, vote manipulation, and brigading are "within [Reddit's] site-wide rules".
72 Another obvious sockpuppet account being used to push Blockstream's agenda.
73 Totally organic grassroots support for the #NO2X "movement." Definitely not a purchased sockpuppet account, you guys.
74 Why Bitcoin Cash
75 If it’s inaccessible to the poor it’s neither radical nor revolutionary.
76 BSCoretabs shills are vandalizing Wikipedia to smear Roger Ver with false quoting, missparaphrasing and accusations.
77 Introducing dipshit extraordinaire Warren Togami, the link between Theymos and BlockStream
78 Debunking: "Blockstream is 3 or 4 developers out of hundreds of developers at Core" - Tone Vays
79 This blockchain debate is purely political and is not about scaling but about control. X-Post from /bitcoin
80 A profile to look at for more evidence
81 What exactly is Blockstream Core's excuse for causing a year of stagnation in Bitcoin with no end in sight?
82 We have a way to build bank-like services.
83 "There is a reason why things are done in a certain way in the financial system, and Bitcoin will be doing something similar"
84 Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.
85 Theymos on Bitcoin XT
86 (If this is not allowed mods, please remove this text) I cannot verify this yet, but a source has given me information about theymos. theymos is known as Michael Marquardt, from Wisconsin and is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin as a computer-science student.
87 A video that Blockstream does not want you to see
88 A story of how someone was brainwashed
89 Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin
90 What /btc is up against
91 OpenBazaar dev explains why they won't implement Lightning Network
92 An extended history of Bitcoin Cash
93 Should I trust Bitcoin Cash ? Roger Ver seems shady
94 /btc gets brigaded and blackmailed
95 Bitcoin Core talking points translated honestly
96 Possible attacks on Bitcoin. One of them did happen
97 How many people are aware that Bitcoin Cash is a manipulation made by Roger Ver, CNBC and Coinbase?
98 Why Rick Falkvinge chose Bitcoin Cash
More from Rick
99 Can Bitcoin Cash scale on-chain?
100 Are bigger blocks better for bigger miners?
101 Jonald Fyookball corrects the misinformation
102 A developer, Luke-Jr, in the Core team is crazy
Thanks to singularity87, 103 to 106. There are more in his link
103 Using the HK agreement to stall miners from adopting bitcoin classic
104 Luke-Jr would be fine with having Jihan Wu executed
105 Theymos threatens to write to the SEC
106 Matt Corallo writes to the SEC to make Core’s BTC the “official” btc.
107 Re: BCH as an altcoin
108 The difference between BTC and BCH
109 Someone asks why Bitcoin Core refuses to increase the blocksize
110 Bitcoin back then : 1, 2, 3, 4
111 More resources
submitted by thepaip to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's market *price* is trying to rally, but it is currently constrained by Core/Blockstream's artificial *blocksize* limit. Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream. The market will always win - either with or without the Chinese miners.

TL;DR:
Chinese miners should think very, very carefully:
The market will always win - with or without you.
The choice is yours.
UPDATE:
The present post also inspired nullc Greg Maxwell (CTO of Blockstream) to later send me two private messages.
I posted my response to him, here:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ir6xh/greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream_has_sent/
Details
If Chinese miners continue using artificially constrained code controlled by Core/Blockstream, then Bitcoin price / adoption / volume will also be artificially constrained, and billions (eventually trillions) of dollars will naturally flow into some other coin which is not artificially constrained.
The market always wins.
The market will inevitably determine the blocksize and the price.
Core/Blockstream is temporarily succeeding in suppressing the blocksize (and the price), and Chinese miners are temporarily cooperating - for short-term, relatively small profits.
But eventually, inevitably, billions (and later trillions) of dollars will naturally flow into the unconstrained, free-market coin.
That winning, free-market coin can be Bitcoin - but only if Chinese miners remove the artificial 1 MB limit and install Bitcoin Classic and/or Bitcoin Unlimited.
Previous posts:
There is not much new to say here - we've been making the same points for months.
Below is a summary of the main arguments and earlier posts:
Previous posts providing more details on these economic arguments are provided below:
This graph shows Bitcoin price and volume (ie, blocksize of transactions on the blockchain) rising hand-in-hand in 2011-2014. In 2015, Core/Blockstream tried to artificially freeze the blocksize - and artificially froze the price. Bitcoin Classic will allow volume - and price - to freely rise again.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44xrw4/this_graph_shows_bitcoin_price_and_volume_ie/
Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dfb3bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/
(By the way, before some sophomoric idiot comes in here and says "causation isn't corrrelation": Please note that nobody used the word "causation" here. But there does appear to be a rough correlation between Bitcoin volume and price, as would be expected.)
The Nine Miners of China: "Core is a red herring. Miners have alternative code they can run today that will solve the problem. Choosing not to run it is their fault, and could leave them with warehouses full of expensive heating units and income paid in worthless coins." – tsontar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xhejm/the_nine_miners_of_china_core_is_a_red_herring/
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
Austin Hill [head of Blockstream] in meltdown mode, desperately sending out conflicting tweets: "Without Blockstream & devs, who will code?" -vs- "More than 80% contributors of bitcoin core are volunteers & not affiliated with us."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/48din1/austin_hill_in_meltdown_mode_desperately_sending/
Be patient about Classic. It's already a "success" - in the sense that it has been tested, released, and deployed, with 1/6 nodes already accepting 2MB+ blocks. Now it can quietly wait in the wings, ready to be called into action on a moment's notice. And it probably will be - in 2016 (or 2017).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44y8ut/be_patient_about_classic_its_already_a_success_in/
Classic will definitely hard-fork to 2MB, as needed, at any time before January 2018, 28 days after 75% of the hashpower deploys it. Plus it's already released. Core will maybe hard-fork to 2MB in July 2017, if code gets released & deployed. Which one is safer / more responsive / more guaranteed?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46ywkk/classic_will_definitely_hardfork_to_2mb_as_needed/
"Bitcoin Unlimited ... makes it more convenient for miners and nodes to adjust the blocksize cap settings through a GUI menu, so users don't have to mod the Core code themselves (like some do now). There would be no reliance on Core (or XT) to determine 'from on high' what the options are." - ZB
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3zki3h/bitcoin_unlimited_makes_it_more_convenient_fo
BitPay's Adaptive Block Size Limit is my favorite proposal. It's easy to explain, makes it easy for the miners to see that they have ultimate control over the size (as they always have), and takes control away from the developers. – Gavin Andresen
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40kmny/bitpays_adaptive_block_size_limit_is_my_favorite/
More info on Adaptive Blocksize:
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin+btc/search?q=adaptive&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
Core/Blockstream is not Bitcoin. In many ways, Core/Blockstream is actually similar to MtGox. Trusted & centralized... until they were totally exposed as incompetent & corrupt - and Bitcoin routed around the damage which they had caused.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47735j/coreblockstream_is_not_bitcoin_in_many_ways/
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/
Theymos: "Chain-forks [='hardforks'] are not inherently bad. If the network disagrees about a policy, a split is good. The better policy will win" ... "I disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said it could be increased."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45zh9d/theymos_chainforks_hardforks_are_not_inherently/
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
Mike Hearn implemented a test version of thin blocks to make Bitcoin scale better. It appears that about three weeks later, Blockstream employees needlessly commit a change that breaks this feature
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43iup7/mike_hearn_implemented_a_test_version_of_thin/
This ELI5 video (22 min.) shows XTreme Thinblocks saves 90% block propagation bandwidth, maintains decentralization (unlike the Fast Relay Network), avoids dropping transactions from the mempool, and can work with Weak Blocks. Classic, BU and XT nodes will support XTreme Thinblocks - Core will not.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4cvwru/this_eli5_video_22_min_shows_xtreme_thinblocks/
More info in Xtreme Thinblocks:
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin+btc/search?q=xtreme+thinblocks&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47fr3p/4_weird_facts_about_adam_back_1_he_neve
I think that it will be easier to increase the volume of transactions 10x than it will be to increase the cost per transaction 10x. - jtoomim (miner, coder, founder of Classic)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/48gcyj/i_think_that_it_will_be_easier_to_increase_the/
Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.480
More info on "spinoffs":
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Abitco.in%2Fforum+spinoff
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

New to Bitcoin?

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

History: /btc vs /Bitcoin

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

Bitcoin Network Hard Forks

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

What Happens Now

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

TL:DR;

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

Ethereum vs Ethereum Classic (Why Did They Split) - YouTube Okuma Classic XT CLX-300L function - YouTube Ethereum vs Ethereum Classic Quick Explanation Emergent Consensus in Bitcoin What is Segwit? Explained To A Child

Die übrigen Nodes setzen sich aus Bitcoin Classic und XT Nodes zusammen. Eine Vergrößerung der Blockgröße ist technisch gesehen relativ einfach. Hier wird im Quellcode das 1 MB durch 2 oder 3 MB ersetzt. Doch größere Blöcke können unerwartete Folgen haben, denn selbst eine Vergrößerung auf 2 MB bedeutet, dass die Nodes doppelt so viele Daten übertragen müssen. Viel schwieriger ist ... Classic? Unlimited? XT? Core? Almost two years ago, when I stepped down as lead maintainer for Bitcoin Core, I wrote: I’m pleased to be able to focus more on protocol-level, cross-implementation issues and less on issues specific to the Bitcoin Core software. I’d still like to focus on protocol-level, cross-implementation issues but lately I’ve been distracted and have generated a lot of ... Bitcoin Core contributor Peter Todd was recently interviewed on episode 34 of The Bitcoin Game, and the longtime Bitcoin developer and researcher was able to explain some of the key disagreements between how the Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Core teams view the peer-to-peer digital cash system.. While many view the Classic vs. Core controversy as nothing more than a technical debate, the reality ... Bitcoin Classic: A fork from Bitcoin Core that proposed increasing the size of blocks. Despite early successes, Bitcoin Classic failed to be adopted by the wider bitcoin community. Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH.

[index] [50805] [17105] [51018] [47513] [11354] [28704] [18283] [42032] [12771] [44825]

Ethereum vs Ethereum Classic (Why Did They Split) - YouTube

Emergence in nature is fundamental to complexity and life itself. Solutions that cannot be agreed after years of debate can instead emerge from a decentralized network. The Bitcoin network itself ... With Slush and KnCMiner beginning to attract Classic supporters (and their capital), Bitcoin's most powerful pool -- F2Pool -- is now letting its miners vote on whether they want bigger blocks. In ... Aug. 19 -- Bitcoin was built on the sort of open-source ethos that has driven generations of geeks. But the same principles it celebrates—a decentralized network of contributors, a transparent ... The dollar amount of all cryptocurrencies combined has remained steady for two months, but Bitcoin's share of that number is dropping. Infighting is the stat... The DAO attack was the main reason why ethereum split into two. Unlike bitcoin and bitcoin cash that were split by the hard fork, but the old blockchain rema...

#