Part 6: The Future of Bitcoin Is Big in Africa - With ...

Dear Greg (and other Core developers)

Dear Greg (and other Core developers),
Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way.
Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter.
When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now.
As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user.
With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core.
For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.
Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited.
So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it.
Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do?
I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that.
Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years.
The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?
The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart?
I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion.
Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid."
If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg?
Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words.
Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.
Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.
Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage.
Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire.
And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit.
So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant.
As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed.
Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense.
Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded.
Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor.
There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs.
Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win.
It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it.
But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone.
Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft.
Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight.
So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around.
You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.
Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right.
But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder.
Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg?
Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice?
Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore.
And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear.
I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.
That's all.
Alex
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1842146.msg18335776#msg18335776
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

Dear Greg (and other Core developers)

Dear Greg (and other Core developers),
Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way.
Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter.
When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now.
As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user.
With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core.
For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.
Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited.
So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it.
Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do?
I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that.
Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years.
The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?
The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart?
I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion.
Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid."
If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg?
Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words.
Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.
Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.
Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage.
Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire.
And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit.
So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant.
As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed.
Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense.
Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded.
Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor.
There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs.
Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win.
It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it.
But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone.
Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft.
Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight.
So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around.
You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.
Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right.
But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder.
Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg?
Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice?
Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore.
And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear.
I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.
That's all.
Alex
submitted by MobTwo to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

"Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes." A common small-blocker misinterpretation of the white paper.

I've seen this image of a marked-up page 6 of the white paper linked a few times by small blockers as supposed evidence of the significance of (non-mining) "full nodes." For example, it was submitted to North Corea with the title: "Fork attacks (from miners with majority hash-power) is actually described in the White Paper as something the bitcoin network is designed to withstand."
That is a blatant misreading of the white paper. Literally the very next paragraph (top of page 7) states:
Given our assumption that p > q [i.e., that honest nodes control more hash power than the attacker], the probability drops exponentially as the number of blocks the attacker has to catch up with increases. With the odds against him, if he doesn't make a lucky lunge forward early on, his chances become vanishingly small as he falls further behind.
The scenario the excerpt is referencing thus explicitly assumes an attacker with a minority of the hash rate attempting to defraud someone by temporarily outpacing the majority chain to pull off a double spend.
The whitepaper makes it extraordinarily clear in multiple places that Bitcoin's security model is entirely premised on the honesty of the mining majority.
From the Abstract:
As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
From the Introduction:
The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.
Section 4:
If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains.
Section 6:
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
Section 8:
As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network.
(Note: the context makes it clear that the attacker "overpowering" the network referred to above is describing a MINORITY hash rate attacker who is TEMPORARILY outpacing the honest majority due to variance / luck.)
Conclusion:
To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power.
Also from the Conclusion:
Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
Note that a malicious mining majority doesn't need to create "invalid" blocks to defraud people or otherwise completely undermine the integrity of the network. The most devastating potential attacks by a malicious majority (aka "51% attacks" / malicious soft forks) involve 100% "valid" blocks -- these attacks involve the enforcement of additional (and malicious) rules.
submitted by Capt_Roger_Murdock to btc [link] [comments]

What are Blockchain Confirmations? Understand Blockchain Technology Blockchain 101 Ep 19 - What are Bitcoin nodes? 10 Things You Didn't Know About Bitcoin How to mine $1,000,000 of Bitcoin using just a laptop ... Bitcoin: Beyond The Bubble - Full Documentary - YouTube

Bitcoin cryptocurrency demonstrated the utility of global consensus across thousands of nodes, changing the world of digital transactions forever. In the early days of Bitcoin, the performance of ... NEW LUNG Total Body + Lung Immune Booster Featuring: FEATURING: 🍊Vitamin C, 🌻Vitamin E, 🥚Vitamin B6, 🦪Zinc, 🔸Turmeric, 🔹Elderberry 🌸Echinacea Powder, 🧄Garlic 🥦L-Glutamine & 🧫 Probiotics. Vitamin C: can be used as accompanying therapy for asthma and obstructive (ie narrowing of the airways) diseases of the lungs a If the lungs can be subject to bacterial infection, why do there not exist beneficial probiotics that live in lung tissue to combat "bad" bacteria proliferation? infection immune-system lungs. asked Jan 26 at 18:38. paneerlovr. 131 1 1 bronze badge. 1. vote. 0answers 30 views What's the primary body entrance + surface of infection for catching the flu? I realize there are multiple ways, but if ... That and putting more emphasis on running full nodes would be good, ignore frauds like Craig who harp on about how irrelevant full nodes are. Full nodes are important in letting you know that the rules of the system are being obeyed, otherwise you're basically putting all trust in miners. This is even more important when you don't dominate your PoW algorithm, it's very easy for rogue Bitcoin ... Alakanani Itireleng founded the Satoshicentre in Botswana in 2014 and single-handedly built a growing Bitcoin community. She is the heart and center of Bitcoin education there, even the government is relying on her consultancy. We recorded this interview in February 2020, only days before the Covid-19 lockdowns went into effect.

[index] [13297] [22468] [21999] [2401] [24693] [41587] [47549] [41902] [11840] [29550]

What are Blockchain Confirmations? Understand Blockchain Technology

00:00 How is the number of zeros in the target hash determined? 00:20 Visualizing target hash difficulty 02:44 How is the difficulty target number determined? 03:51 How do all nodes agree on the ... That market has now fully opened and so far over 2,800 Bitcoin Cash has been traded and the price relative to Bitcoin is down 10%. So right now, a Bitcoin Cash is worth around 15% of a Bitcoin. This video will go into more details what a node in blockchain actually is. Full Nodes with 150+ GB: – Bitcoin Core Client itself: https://bitcoin.org/en/dow... The number of confirmations is the number of blocks that have been added to the blockchain after a transaction is confirmed. For example, if a transaction is in one block, it has 1 confirmation ... The blockchain is made up of a network of nodes--or computers--that communicate with one another in order to ensure that the ledger is accurate. As soon as I send this Bitcoin, the transaction is ...

#