bitcoin [Mike J. Kreuzer, PhD, MCSE, MCT, Microsoft Cloud ...

I recently recounted the history of the block size controversy for someone and thought I'd repost it here

Bitcoin development was initially led by an anonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto who created the project "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System"
The project mostly languished in obscurity until in late 2010 it was revealed that Bitcoin was being used to evade the ban on Wikileaks contributions. (A good summary of Bitcoin's early history can be found here.)
Satoshi was opposed to Bitcoin being used for something as controversial as funding Wikileaks, and in one of his last messages, wrote "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us." (link). Satoshi vanished shortly thereafter.
When Satoshi disappeared, he left the project effectively in the control of Gavin Andresen, one of the early contributors to the project. Gavin has been characterized as something of a naive academic. It wasn't long before Gavin had been approached by the CIA and agreed to visit and do a presentation. So we know that Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar by 2011.
Bitcoin-as-introduced had an Achilles heel. To prevent a specific kind of denial-of-service attack, Satoshi had added a "block size limit" to prevent flooding attacks. Satoshi's plan was to raise the limit as usage increased. Satoshi and the early Bitcoiners such as myself did not envision that the limit might itself be a vulnerability. A near-complete history of the block size limit controversy is here. I'll attempt to summarize my experience with some references.
Now it's almost 2020, and by now we've all become much more attuned to the scope of what three-letter-agencies have been doing to manipulate social media platforms. But in 2012 that was tinfoil-hat stuff across most of the internet.
In 2012, the Bitcoin subreddit was one of the key places people went for discussion about what was happening in Bitcoin. That, and the bitcointalk forum. The history of what happened has been well documented with sources in places like here and here.
The TLDR is
Throughout all of this, Blockstream steadfastly argued that it didn't control the Bitcoin Core software. Blockstream pointed to Chaincode Labs who funded several key bitcoin developers and the MIT Media Labs "Digital Currency Initiative" who funded Gavin, Cory, and Wladimir. Gavin and Wladimir in particular had the authority to merge changes into the Bitcoin Core software and as such effectively could decide what did and did not go into the software. As an ostensibly academic organization, Gavin and Wladimir etc could act with intellectual honesty and without coercion.
Except Gavin left the Digital Currency Initiative in 2017, saying that while he wasn't pressured to quit, he "didn't want to feel obligated to any person or organization."
Fast forward to 2019, and we learn the fascinating news that the MIT Media Labs were funded in part by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, who it turns out just so happened to be a staunch advocate of the Blockstream approach. So really, Bitcoin development was corralled: Blockstream was paying a bunch of devs, and Blockstream-Friendly MIT Media Labs were paying the others.
If you're still reading this, you probably wonder what it is about the Blockstream strategy that is so "bad." Aren't they just proposing a different way to solve Bitcoin's problems?
The original idea for Bitcoin was a "peer to peer cash system" - - the idea being that if Alice wants to buy something from Bob, she can just give him some tokens - - just like cash.
The new vision of bitcoin promoted by Blockstream and Core is "store of value". Under this model, you buy Bitcoins like you might speculate on gold - you buy some and you hold it. Later, if you want to purchase something, you sell your Bitcoins for some other payment method (or use an IOU against a deposit, just like a bank), and use that for purchases.
It should be apparent after a moment of thought that the original concept (Alice hands Bob some cash which Bob can then spend how he likes) is vastly more disruptive than the model in which Alice buys Bitcoin on a government-regulated exchange, holds them hoping they'll appreciate in value, and then sells them for Euros or dollars. In model one, the currency is essentially outside the domain of gatekeepers, and could completely disintermediate the entire existing financial system just like Napster for money. In model two, Bitcoin is no more disruptive than shares of a gold fund.
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

These 25 top-voted posts from r/btc this week show that users and miners are working on real solutions to help Bitcoin move forward, while Core/Blockstream are obstructing progress and losing support. Please help spread this information (including translating for the Chinese-speaking community)!

Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Block Size Increase Hard Fork
~ tylev
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kpgxt/antpool_will_not_run_segwit_without_block_size/
So, this is exactly the situation the Classic code was meant to prevent.
Fixing the issue before it becomes an issue. Classic was correct and full blocks are the largest problem that Bitcoin faces.
~ Annapurna317
Leaders of Core had a childish little selfish tantrum about wanting to work on what cool stuff they wanted to build and wouldn't listen.
It would have been relatively safe and easy to introduce the 2mb HF if it was progressed collectively and collaboratively with good will by all parties.
All of this could have been avoided long ago. There is one person who is very influential who we know to be adamant about blocks being confined to 1mb.
~ papabitcoin
Hardfork in July 2017 will be too late.
If you read the statement by Peter "I don't have a clue about economics" Todd you might start to puke.
“Unfortunately Bitcoin simply doesn't scale well" How about you start to tell what exactly doesn't scale you fuckhead?
P.S.: The blockchain is growing indefinitely, if you don't like that fact you should choose something else than cryptocurrencies or come up with a better way.
~ satoshis_sockpuppet
This is classic narrowmindedness on PT's part.
He'd also be the first one to say that the internet is not sustainable as it produces exponentially more and more data.
These guys are fucking idiots and really have no idea what they are talking about, all they see is "BLOAT!" and "TOO BIG FOR CURRENT NODES!" then react accordingly without even thinking about the fact that Bitcoin's usefulness mitigates these limiting factors almost entirely.
~ ferretinjapan
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
Gavin Andresen: Bitcoin Protocol Role Models
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l0ugy/gavin_andresen_bitcoin_protocol_role_models/
http://gavinandresen.ninja/bitcoin-protocol-role-models
There are limits on routing table sizes, but they are not top-down-specified-in-a-standards-document protocol limits.
They are organic limits that arise from whatever hardware is available and from the (sometimes very contentious!) interaction of the engineers keeping the Internet backbone up and running.
~ Gavin
We've long established that the 1mb limit (or their refusal to remove it) has absolutely nothing to do with technical concerns.
It's a political matter, whose raison d'être we can only infer.
Time to stop the bullshit and the [s]quabbling. Chinese miners wake up! Time to try something new. It quite literally can't be worse than what's going on right now.
~ redlightsaber
Fred Ehrsam / Coinbase basically says that Ethereum is the future of cryptocurrency
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kvqwj/fred_ehrsam_coinbase_basically_says_that_ethereum/
https://medium.com/the-coinbase-blog/ethereum-is-the-forefront-of-digital-currency-5300298f6c75#.4wqiu5njb
Bitcoin has become embroiled in debate over the block size - an important topic for the health of the network, but not something that should halt progress in a young and rapidly developing field.
The developer community in Bitcoin feels fairly dormant. Bitcoin never really made it past the stage of simple wallets and exchanges.
Bitcoin’s “leadership” is ... toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of Core developers, recently referred to other Core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well-meaning dips***s.”
~ huntingisland
This was a good sobering read.
It is also worth noting that Coinbase was left with little choice but to broaden its offerings given the current state of Bitcoin usability ...
When BS hijacked BTC away from being money, it screwed a lot of business and usage plans. ...
Praise be to the free market and the market place of ideas.
~ veintiuno
REPOST from 12/2015: "If there are only 20 seats on the bus and 25 people that want to ride, there is no ticket price where everyone gets a seat. Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they are fixed by adding seats, which in this case means raising the blocksize cap."Vibr8gKiwi
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kfqyj/repost_from_122015_if_there_are_only_20_seats_on/
By the way, this shows that a certain other trending OP from today:
Why all the disinformation? Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees. Currently $0.05
...is total bullshit.
But that other OP was posted in an echo-chamber of censorship (r\bitcoin).
That is dangerous (for them), because it allows them to enjoy the illusion that they are right - when in reality, they are wrong, because they are ignoring the fact that full blocks DO matter: because the overflow goes elsewhere (into fiat, into alts, etc.).
~ ydtm
We just got Blockstreamed! (Coinbase rebranding away from BTC)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k455s/we_just_got_blockstreamed_coinbase_rebranding/
Coinbase Exchange to Rebrand Following Ethereum Trading Launch
http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-exchange-rebrand-ethereum-trading/
Bitcoin exchange and wallet service Coinbase is adding support for ether, the native cryptocurrency of the Ethereum network. ...
This is quite significant. I would interpret this as a loss of confidence in Blockstream to provide what customers need in a timely manner.
While Blockstream wastes time figuring out how to stuff all the world's transaction data into their beloved tiny blocks, the market will move on to solutions that can actually scale and can scale NOW.
Blockstream: The world will not wait for you.
~ objectivist72
Gavin finally speaks - they are "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"
~ aquentin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4koywo/gavin_finally_speaks_they_are_rearranging_the/
Gavin could post that the sky is blue and it would generate a shitstorm of controversy.
~ borg
Opinions on Gavin over there are variously:
1 - Why aren't you coding for Core?
2 - Which agency do you work for?
3 - Haha classic suxxor
A very telling series of questions that the false agenda has fermented and sunk in.
~ nanoakron
Core has solved the scalability issue!
By keeping the blocksize at 1MB they have motivated users to look to other blockchains. Problem solved!
~ solled
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k5k80/core_has_solved_the_scalability_issue/
It's actually kind of brilliant !
Think about it: no need for super dangerous hard forks, and not even soft forks. No new code needed, no testing, nothing.
All it took was 2-3 years of endless stalling, organizing some fake conventions, a bit of character assassination and demonization here and there, nothing major. Done.
It was actually very well-thought-out. Congratulations and hat off to nullc adam3us and all their drones.
~ realistbtc
Bitcoin is a giant, global "Consensus-tron" based on a fundamental meta-rule: "51% Consensus based on Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Blockstream/Core is trying change this meta-rule, to make it "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") - the MOST CONTENTIOUS change conceivable in Bitcoin
The main characteristic of Bitcoin is that it is basically a kind of global "consensus-producing machine" or "Consensus-tron" - which runs based on a fundamental meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" - also called "Nakamoto Consensus".
Recently, Blockstream has started trying to quietly change this fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin based on "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus").
Instead, they have proposed a totally different meta-rule based on "95% Consensus" - which they like to call "Strong Consensus", but a better name would probably be "Extreme Consensus", to show what an extreme change it would be.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l45p1/bitcoin_is_a_giant_global_consensustron_based_on/
Every binary vote has an opposite side. 95% consensus is actually 5% consensus of the opposing team. Would you like a 5% consensus system? No? Then you wouldn't like a 95% consensus system.
That's why 50% is the only valid threshold -- because it's the only one that makes both sides equal.
~ kingofthejaffacakes
The only real threshold is 51%.
~ Ant-n
Continuing on this road , soon Coinbase and Circle will probably allow to send and receive Ether, and Coinbase and Bitpay will offer the option to pay in Ether. At that point Gregonomic fee pressure will go out of the window.
The first mover led the ground work, but it's not an exclusive advantage.
Bitcoin needs to wake up from the Blockstream-induced coma !!!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8c8g/continuing_on_this_road_soon_coinbase_and_circle/
This is so painfully obvious. The users do not want a "fee market". Blockstream is absolutely hell-bent on giving us one, despite there being no need for a "fee market" at this point in time. Therefore the free market will do its job and provide an alternative to Bitcoin, and the users will move to the alternative where they will get what they actually want.
~ objectivist72
Bitcoin users are speaking out, and they want bigger blocks. Compare these 2 OPs: r\bitcoin: "Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees" (100 upvotes) vs btc: "Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they can only be fixed by raising the blocksize cap" (200 upvotes)
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kjxrb/bitcoin_users_are_speaking_out_and_they_want/
The block size issue has turned me off to bitcoin entirely, I no longer evangelize, no longer buy or use them. Blockstream has destroyed all the good-will I had for Bitcoin.
Once the block sizes are larger, and continue rising with use, I'll be interested again. until then, Bitcoin can wallow in the fail
~ jmdugan
Maxwell the vandal calls Adam, Luke, and Peter Todd dipshits
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8rsa/maxwell_the_vandal_calls_adam_luke_and_peter_todd/
Peak idiocy imminent @Blockstream-Core? Or not yet?
~ Shock_The_Stream
Just to confirm, that is the CTO of Blockstream calling the President of Blockstream a "dipshit" on a public forum.
~ Leithm
Andreas "I believe this is called a "Mexican Standoff". No segwit no HF. No HF, no segwit. Compromise time."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kq2dm/andreas_i_believe_this_is_called_a_mexican/
2mb WAS the compromise FFS.
~ tailsta
I thought 8MB was the compromise.
~ dskloet
Actually 20MB was the compromise. The original plan was to just remove the cap and let miners implement their own norms.
~ ForkiusMaximus
Damn fucking straight, the larger block side has been compromising for over a year and they have refused to compromise from day one.
Now is not the time to compromise, now is the time to sweep them aside as they have brought nothing to the table.
These devs shouldn't even be given the time of day considering their open contempt for larger blocks and the miners should be finding devs that will give them what they need, rather than trying to negotiate with asshats that refuse to negotiate.
~ ferretinjapan
"It's truly funny how blockstream are dead against 2mb of block data using traditional transactions along with linear signature validation... but blindly think that 2.85mb of segwit + confidential payment codes + other features is acceptable."
And also funny that their roadmap allows for 5.7mb blocks when blockstream decide its ok for the hard fork.. yet they cant explain what network bandwidth restrictions are currently preventing 2mb now but weirdly and suddenly not an issue for 5.7mb next year...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kn960/its_truly_funny_how_blockstream_are_dead_against/
It's a matter of ego and politics. From a computer science standpoint, Adam Back wanted the 2-4-8 mb scaling originally, which would have been completely safe (and smart).
Segwit is required for the Lightning Network and some other things Blockstream wants to centralize and profit from.
No better way to get something you need in there than making it necessary for scaling and saying it's the best solution.
Segwit is a backwards approach compared to the easier and cleaner solution of increasing the blocksize
~ Annapurna317
maaku7: "I don't know anyone who is actually working on a hard fork right now (although I'm sure someone is). Keep in mind very few core developers were at the HK meeting and that 'agreement' is mostly not acceptable to those who were not there."
The Hongkong Farce. Great job Core and Chinese/Georgian 'miners'!
~ Shock_The_Stream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k74cmaaku7_i_dont_know_anyone_who_is_actually_working/
HF will never happen unless miners switch client. The problem is miners still trust Adam & Co.
The day Mike Hearn left, he told me: "Both Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell are extremely skilled manipulators, timewasters and both of them have been caught lying red handed. I strongly suggest you just ignore both of them. I do not plan to take part in Bitcoin related discussions further".
From my experience, Adam will tell you whatever you want to hear, but do something different behind your back.
Just look at his presentations he gave to the miners and others, they are full of lies and inaccuracies. This isn't rocket science.
I just can't understand why people keep buying bullshit from a guy who's not even a core dev, but president of a company that only benefits from making sure Bitcoin itself is crippled so people are forced offchain.
~ olivierjanss
That was known opinion by Mark [Friedenbach, maaku7].
He said right after HK that it is not Core's agreement, that individual developers there were not representatives for Core.
And that the HF block limit increase is not an option.
I don't know what are miners still expecting and waiting for.
~ r1q2
Is this information being sent to the Chinese bitcoin community?
Who is doing that?
How does information like this not immediately change the ballgame?
~ 8yo90
There's more than enough developer talent in the Bitcoin space to ensure a hard fork comes off successfully, but the Core developers have divided the community with lies to make it more difficult to pull off. Instead of helping achieve it, they have created community-wide FUD.
~ Reddit_My_Life_Away
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ku44w/theres_more_than_enough_developer_talent_in_the/
My opinion is that we can't have Blockstream at all involved in Bitcoin any longer.
If you keep them involved, even after a blocksize increase, we will suffer in the future.
Similar to malware, you have to remove it.
~ mti985
This is the correct way to decide "maximum blocksize"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kwntk/this_is_the_correct_way_to_decide_maximum/
https://i.imgur.com/UTUMSwzl.png
I'm very happy to see you researching Bitcoin Unlimited!
~ Peter__R
Mike Hearn: Bitcoin’s “Young, Unripened Democracy” Suffers Under Authoritarian Developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8o7x/mike_hearn_bitcoins_young_unripened_democracy/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mike-hearn-bitcoin-democracy/
Hearn describes in the interview how people in the developer scene do not truly want the cryptocurrency to be decentralized.
“They say they want so, but that’s not what they want. Bitcoin is a young, unripened Democracy, in which a group of developers hold the power. And this group is desperately trying to prevent a real vote on the future of Bitcoin.”
...
“[They] won’t vote against Core, because [they’ve] been told voting is dangerous,” Hearn elucidates. “The miners are not per se against proposals to increase the capacity, such as something like Bitcoin Classic wants. The miners refuse to vote. At this point, some developers, including myself, lost interest, because we realized it no longer was a debate about the block size. Suddenly it was trying to convince Chinese people democracy is a good thing.”
~ Mike Hearn
Sadly, he sounds like the voice of reason in a world gone mad.
~ realistbtc
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch.
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/fa44a78d7d6f6a2e0536e611e43093a8/tumblr_inline_mjh5diUr7t1qz4rgp.jpg
PSA: when someone asks for info about a transaction getting stuck, stop saying that the fee was too low or his wallet did something wrong. The correct answer is that currently Bitcoin is broken.
~ realistbtc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k44cf/psa_when_someone_ask_for_info_about_a_transaction/
Artificial capacity restraint by Core devs is the correct answer.
~ flamingboard
This is so true.
I mean, look at the logic.
If $0.01 is not enough, and everyone sets it at $1.00, then it is still not enough because the number of transactions at the 'higher' price is still too many and blocks are still full with transactions being ignored.
~ canadiandev
This is why I think Blockstream's mission is to hurt bitcoin.
I cannot believe that they genuinely can be so stupid to ignore this aspect.
~ usrn
The core devs (Wladimir and Maxwell) do not care about the price of bitcoin. They do not care to give investors a clear indication of what capacity will be in the near or mid future. This is contrary to the fact that everything else is known. Roger Ver is right.
Investors (Hodlers) are a large part of what makes bitcoin valuable. Without a clear indication of what capacity is going to be in the future there is no clear indication of what the worth of Bitcoin actually is.
~ specialenmity
Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin.
Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin.
~ Roger Ver / ~ MemoryDealers
Gregory Maxwell (nullc) & /bitcoin have deleted my posts
They have also banned me from any discussion on their subreddit.
I was simply posting that Gregory Maxwell (nullc) is lying when he says "the Chinese Bitcoin community stands behind us".
This is false, they do not.
In fact, a respected member from the Chinese Bitcoin community said this: "Do you know that what you are doing is harming bitcoin by spreading misinformation? I'm from China. I can just tell you the common sense in the Chinese Community of Bitcoin. No one likes BlockStream now! People in China all know that it is Greg Maxwell who is blocking bitcoin by limiting block size. I dare say, your company can never develop any business in China in the future."
~ taxed4ever
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l6p57/gregory_maxwell_nullc_rbitcoin_have_deleted_my/
Jihan of Antpool, great response in regards to Chinese Bitcoin discussion on /bitcoin I was banned from:
Maxwell,
When you talking about "in fact", it smells like no fact. You are spreading very serious rumors about the mining network situation. Antpool has been connected to Relay Network and also testing a new network called Falcon after being invited. The total network orphan rate has been keeping lower and lower in the past months, which is an evidence that the network is working in a much better situation. Antpool in the past April have only 1 orphaned block, which is an evidence that there is no selfish mining situation - a selfish mining attack will generate higher orphan rate on both competitors and attackers. On the https://poolbench.antminer.link/, you can find ... the performance of a mining pool. (This is a third party site, this is fact.)
Antpool and other mining pools had made the position clear as water since in the Hong Kong meeting, that SegWit+HF [is] coming as package. If you just realized right now, ... the communication problem inside Core, you cannot blame anyone else. We will not activ[ate] the SegWit until seeing the promised (by "individuals" yes I know Maxwell could not be represented) HF code being released in Bitcoin Core. If everything is progressed according the HK Consensus, the SegWit will not be stalled. The SegWit as a very th[o]rough improvement/change [and] will need to be carefully tested and reviewed after its release, at least for several months. During which time the HF can be proposed, defined, implemented and released. While the max blocksize limit lifting can be activated later, but as the code is already contained in the release, most of the economic nodes in the network will be compatible with the coming blocksize bumping up.
Bitcoin is a worldwide economy infrastructure and it requires working together and moving forward. Greg, you need to have some self control from talking like a human flesh fascist propaganda machine, trying to attack anyone who disagree with you.
Please don't tag those concerns as "pro-altcoin". (Another evidence of your problematic speaking style.) The concerns are genuine concerns. Some of the concerns coming from people who hold very large stake of Bitcoin since early time. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the town. I also see some small blockers are very active in the competing coin development. You cannot use this methods to distinguish people at all. Then stop judging people's intention and unrelated behavior but focus on the problem itself.
The only thing I have to add is that you can't wait for Mr. Maxwell and his company to deliver their promise. It is a toxic arrangement and we need to focus on looking past them, repairing the damage and working towards the future. When there are too many lies and scandal involved, you have to cut your losses and walk away. Investors around the world will be confident once we start making firm moves. Positive press from Forbes will help repair confidence with investors.
Either way, thank you!
We are all committed to working together.
~ taxed4ever
This is fine.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kqdh8/this_is_fine/
http://imgur.com/KdfJI2G
~ bitkong-me
Picture characterizing the situation very well!
~ Amichateur
In successful open-source software projects, the community should drive the code - not the other way around. Projects fail when "dead scripture" gets prioritized over "common sense". (Another excruciating analysis of Core/Blockstream's pathological fetishizing of a temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge)
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8kda/in_successful_opensource_software_projects_the/
ashmoran explains why Blockstream's behavior flies in the face of the Agile Manifesto, a guide that is widely applicable to open-source software development:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4asyc9/collaboration_requires_communication/d13av94?context=2
The essence of Gavin's point reminded me of the things the Agile Manifesto was meant to address. ...
The behaviour of Blockstream is like the most pathological cases of capital-E Enterprise software development I've seen.
~ BobsBurgers4Bitcoin
Samsung Mow: "@austinhill @Blockstream Now it's time to see if Greg Maxwell is part of the solution or the problem."
~ Egon_1
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/
Not enough popcorn in the world for this.
~ kanaarrt
Samson Mow is part of the problem.
~ Domrada
Chairman Mow can be a very annoying creature
~ hiddensphinx
He makes bad choices, he's unprofessional, he's cost us money, the list goes on and on.
~ mfkusa
Trouble on the home front.
I don't think Greg has it in him to "give in"; he has to be "right" at all costs.
~ buddhamangler
This is what I'm hoping, as, "giving in" will mean he'll walk away from Bitcoin.
~ ferretinjapan
Why is it not recognized that ANY block size limit is a hack on a hack
Bitcoin will NOT work right until the size limit hack is removed entirely. The limit is being leveraged to justify many actions. All of which would be moot if the limit did not exist.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kbcaa/why_is_it_not_recognized_that_any_block_size/
You're absolutely right. Miners have always regulated the size of their own blocks and still do.
We see it in the form of excluding zero-fee transactions, SPV mining, spam filtering, etc.
They will do the same without a limit.
All in the name of maintaining profitability.
~ cypherdoc2
It's true that almost every single argument Core makes for limiting the blocksize, if correct, should be what the miners/investors would do anyway if left to their own devices.
~ ForkiusMaximus
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

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.

The graph below tells you everything you need to know about the way that Bitcoin price and volume normally always move in lockstep, tightly correlated with each other - until Blockstream tragically tried to interfere starting around 2015:
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/img/mempool/how-we-know-bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble/MetcalfeGraph.png
(There is a typo in the legend of the second graph linked above: "Bitcoin market map" should say "Bitcoin market cap[italization]".)
Bitcoin's "Metcalfe's Law" relationship between market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3x8ba9/bitcoins_metcalfes_law_relationship_between/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3x8mmc/bitcoins_metcalfes_law_relationship_between/
How We Know Bitcoin Is Not a Bubble
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/how-we-know-bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble/#selection-59.4-68.0
(Scroll down to see the graph - also note there is a typo in the legend: "Bitcoin market map" should say "Bitcoin market cap[italization]".)
Without artificial limits, Bitcoin volume and price are naturally and tightly correlated.
This tight, lockstep correlation between those two lines during 2011-2014 has been absolutely amazing - one of the tightest correlations you'll ever observe in any dynamic system anywhere, in economics, sociology, or nature.
Price and volume rose (and fell) hand-in-hand for 4 years straight - one of the most majestic examples of emergent phenomena in the whole history of economics.
Left to run its natural course, this graph would probably have continued in lockstep, and thus would have eventually gone into the history books of future generations, marking the inexorable emergence and dominance of the cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin - the inevitable triumph of humanity's first decentralized and permissionless store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account - steadily rising through the years in price and volume - and in usefulness.
Then in late 2014, a new company called Blockstream tried to block this natural progression.
The oligarchs behind the ancien régime of debt-backed, violence-enforced infinite fiat thought they had figured out a clever way to attempt to make their last pièce de résistance while making some money too.
They brought out their their usual grab-bag of assorted dirty tricks which they typically use to take down any new social or economic or political movement that promises to liberate people from the stranglehold of private central bankers:
So far, Blockstream thinks they're winning in their battle to control Bitcoin.
  • They succeeded (during 2015) in splitting the community, maybe even creating even a few more useful idiots in the process.
  • They succeeded (during 2015) in suppressing the price: as you can see by observing how the lockstep correlation between price and volume diverged in 2015, with the price now lagging and sagging below the volume for the first time ever.
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
But can they keep spreading around their fiat and FUD to continue fooling all the people all the time?
Probably not. Because...
Now you can choose to run a repo without Blockstream's artificial scarcity on blocksize and transactions on the blockchain.
Now, instead of running the Bitcoin Core repo from Blockstream, you can run any one of these another tested and deployed repos, which do not artificially limit the blocksize to 1 MB:
Bitcoin is a natural, market-based and community-based, emergent phenomenon.
At its heart, in the words of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is a P2P Electronic Cash System where Alice "A" can send to Bob "B" some amount of Coins "C", secured via a cryptographic signature.
It may come as a shock to certain people's egos, but even if most of the devs were to suddenly stop working now - the current system would probably work fine for the next few years - with investors and businesspeople continuing to gradually increase the price and volume in accordance with the desires of the worldwide market, and miners and full-nodes continuing to gradually increase the "max blocksize" in accordance with the capacity of the worldwide infrastructure - and everyone continuing to innovate and participate in the growth of the system in accordance with the desires of the worldwide community.
Bitcoin doesn't really need a whole lot of interference from devs trying to centrally plan what the "max blocksize" should be - or mods trying to centrally control what the "consensus of opinions" should be. These kinds of things are better left to just naturally emerge on their own.
Central planning and control are not needed.
As we have already seen, when the market is allowed to determine Bitcoin price and volume on its own, they both naturally go up, hand-in-hand - while the value of centrally-planned fiat goes down and and down.
And when the community is allowed to determine upvotes and downvotes on its own, the quality of debate naturally goes up - while the quality of centrally-controlled debate on censored forums goes down and down.
We all know that Bitcoin is supposed to be trustless and permissionless.
Bitcoin development should also be egoless.
As a dev or a mod, it's hard to "step aside" and let the market or the community decide. It's much more tempting to interfere: enforce a limit here, delete a comment there.
But the market and the community are emergent phenomena. They work best when devs and mods learn to put aside their egos and "step back" and let the market and the community do what they will.
This is the raison d'être of Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Bitcoin XT: learning to let the market and the community decide again - learning to step back again, and let the price and volume go up again, with no unnecessary interference from devs or mods.
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2017-01-09 to 2017-02-07 22:40 PDT

Period: 29.80 days
Submissions Comments
Total 999 28052
Rate (per day) 33.52 904.13
Unique Redditors 409 2067
Combined Score 56126 117584

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3835 points, 41 submissions: Egon_1
    1. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" (529 points, 262 comments)
    2. Charlie Shrem: "Oh cmon. @gavinandresen is the reason we are all here today. Stop attacking people, ...." (256 points, 61 comments)
    3. The core developers don't care about you. Let's fire them by hard fork to Bitcoin unlimited! (231 points, 83 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Core Hashrate Below 80% (211 points, 27 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin is an P2P electronic cash system, not digital gold. If Bitcoin's usefulness as cash is undermined, its value will be undermined too." (198 points, 196 comments)
    6. I like these ads (194 points, 25 comments)
    7. "ViaBTC Transaction Accelerator already help more than 5K delayed transactions got confirmed." (142 points, 27 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Unlimited: Over 800 PH/s (128 points, 21 comments)
    9. ViaBTC produces ZERO empty block in the last month. Best in SPV base mining pool. (117 points, 2 comments)
    10. New ATL (All Time Low) For Bitcoin Core Blocks (114 points, 59 comments)
  2. 2876 points, 24 submissions: ydtm
    1. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
    2. BU-SW parity! 231 vs 231 of the last 1000 blocks! Consensus will always win over censorship! MARKET-BASED blocksize will always win over CENTRALLY-PLANNED blocksize! People want blocksize to be determined by the MARKET - not by Greg Maxwell & his 1.7MB anyone-can-spend SegWit-as-a-soft-fork blocks. (271 points, 66 comments)
    3. The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price! (185 points, 80 comments)
    4. "Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
    5. "Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander (175 points, 110 comments)
    6. "You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
    7. Blockstream/Core don't care about you. They're repeatedly crippling the network with their DEV-CONTROLLED blocksize. Congestion & delays are now ROUTINE & PREDICTABLE after increased difficulty / time between blocks. Only we can fix the network - using MARKET-CONTROLLED blocksize (Unlimited/Classic) (168 points, 60 comments)
    8. 3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
    9. This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price. (143 points, 97 comments)
    10. Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
  3. 2424 points, 31 submissions: realistbtc
    1. Remember this picture ? It was a very strong and cool message from around 2014 . Well, sadly it's not true anymore. But it was universally liked in the Bitcoin space , and probably brought here some of us . I remember even luke-jr reposting it somewhere (oh , the hypocrysis!! ). (249 points, 55 comments)
    2. Emin Gun Sirer on Twitter ' My take is the exact opposite: we are now finding out that Segwit isn't necessary and we can get the same benefits via simpler means. " (248 points, 46 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on Twitter : ' The purpose of a consensus system is to arrive at one outcome. Participating means accepting the result even if you initially disagree. ' (204 points, 56 comments)
    4. enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
    5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter - 'This can't be controversial... can it? - a definition of Bitcoin' (136 points, 38 comments)
    6. adam back on twitter "contentious forks are bad idea for confidence & concept of digital scarcity. wait for the ETFs. profit. mean time deploy segwit & lightning" - no! a corrupt company like blockstream with a washed out ex cypherpunk like adam are what's bad for Bitcoin . (122 points, 115 comments)
    7. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" - if you stray from that , you don't get to keep calling it Bitcoin. call it blockstreamcoin, adamcoin, gregcoin, theymoscoin or whatever and go fork off yourself . (112 points, 19 comments)
    8. soon 21 will have to change the scale , because 180 satoshi/KB won't be enough anymore - madness - feel free to send your complaints to greg maxwell CTO of blockstream (112 points, 31 comments)
    9. PSA : if you use a ledger wallet , you risk paying an absurdly high free - see here : 10$ for a 225 bytes 150$ tx - but remember , it's all fine for your elitist and gregonomic friends at blockstream (109 points, 111 comments)
    10. Luke 'the liar' Dashjr : ' My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. ' -- yes , he wrote exactly that !! (96 points, 33 comments)
  4. 2129 points, 43 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. After failing to get 10K bitcoins for stolen NSA exploits, Shadow Brokers post farewell message, dump a cache of Windows hacking tools online (181 points, 23 comments)
    2. Coinbase and the IRS (146 points, 69 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter - There is a leadership gap in bitcoin left by technical community members who didn't listen to miners, businesses or users. (117 points, 44 comments)
    4. Blockstream Core developer says you should "pay a $5 fee" to get your transaction to go through! (116 points, 32 comments)
    5. $2.50 transaction FEE paid on $37 transaction, still unconfirmed for 24 hours!! (109 points, 37 comments)
    6. Blockstream shareholder gives a little more insight into the company (107 points, 33 comments)
    7. Finished setting up my Unlimited full node. Took just over 24 hrs to sync with a 5 yr old laptop and standard U.S. connection + $50 1TB hard drive! (96 points, 46 comments)
    8. Matt Corallo/TheBlueMatt leaves Blockstream to go work for Chaincode Labs... is the Blockstream house of cards beginning to crumble? (86 points, 175 comments)
    9. 53,000 transactions in the backlog! (75 points, 79 comments)
    10. Doctor ₿ Goss on Twitter: Spending a year on #segwit instead of coordinating blocksize increase may not have been wise. Money that doesn't work is worthless (70 points, 11 comments)
  5. 1590 points, 9 submissions: parban333
    1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
    2. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. (400 points, 207 comments)
    3. Remember: while the blockstream trolls take Peter R out of context, Peter Todd really think Bitcoin should have a 1%/security tax via inflation. (146 points, 92 comments)
    4. So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
    5. SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
    6. Remember: the manipulative Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, want to fool every newcomer that doesn't know better into thinking that he practically invented Bitcoin. (91 points, 22 comments)
    7. Not only segwit support is laughable at the moment for something targeting 95% adoption, but it's actually diminishing. Wallet devs and people that spent resources implementing that ridiculous contraption must feel a bit silly at the moment.... (83 points, 143 comments)
    8. It's ironic that blockstream's concerns about hard forks security are what's actually caused concerns about hard forks security. (46 points, 5 comments)
    9. The Intercept - "Hidden loopholes allow FBI agents to infiltrate political and religious groups" - Just something to consider, right? (27 points, 2 comments)
  6. 1471 points, 10 submissions: sandakersmann
    1. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." (472 points, 254 comments)
    2. Olivier Janssens on Twitter: "Do you like Bitcoin? Then you like an unlimited block size. The limit was put in place as a temp fix and was never hit before last year." (252 points, 189 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter: "Bigger blocks will allow more people access to every aspect of bitcoin, enhancing decentralization" (213 points, 179 comments)
    4. Is Bitcoin Unlimited Headed for Activation? (149 points, 38 comments)
    5. Marius Kjærstad on Twitter: "High fees push real economy out of #Bitcoin and makes price driven by speculation. Result is a lower real economy floor to catch the knife." (132 points, 37 comments)
    6. No Primary Litecoin Pool Will Upgrade to Segwit, Says LTC1BTC's Founder (103 points, 60 comments)
    7. Charlie Shrem: "Bitcoin is been built to appreciate or die. That's how it is. It has to continue to grow. If it doesn't grow then it's just gonna go away." (76 points, 15 comments)
    8. G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (Episode 166) (36 points, 1 comment)
    9. Joseph VaughnPerling on Twitter: "#SegWit on $LTC's safe b/c low TX vol. AnyoneCanSpend TX UTXO unlikely to hit 51% attack cost. On $BTC it'd be insidiously fatal. @SegWit" (21 points, 8 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Plummets After China Launches "Market Manipulation" Investigations Of Bitcoin Exchanges (17 points, 0 comments)
  7. 1408 points, 7 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. (307 points, 142 comments)
    2. Reality check: today's minor bug caused the bitcoin.com pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
    3. Satoshi: "The eventual solution will be to not care how big [block size] gets." (250 points, 75 comments)
    4. Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks at all time high! (143 of last 1000) (191 points, 56 comments)
    6. Censored in bitcoin: "Bitcoin Core hashrate reaches 79.7%" (91 points, 61 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Transaction Fees - All Time (70 points, 18 comments)
  8. 1235 points, 40 submissions: chinawat
    1. Julian Assange just used the bitcoin block number 447506 as a proof of life. (199 points, 42 comments)
    2. "$3000 donated anonymously to the @internetarchive in bitcoin just now. Made our day!" -- Brewster Kahle on Twitter (97 points, 3 comments)
    3. ‘Barclays took my £440,000 and put me through hell’ | Money (76 points, 22 comments)
    4. Venezuelan Police Arrest Eight Bitcoin Miners in Two Weeks, and the Country's Leading Bitcoin Exchange Suspends Operations (52 points, 2 comments)
    5. The Path To $10,000 Bitcoin (46 points, 11 comments)
    6. How Deutsche Bank Made a $462 Million Loss Disappear (44 points, 6 comments)
    7. "The plan (#mBTC units) has been discussed amongst local #Chinese exchanges, & we believe it will appease the regulators, w/ "lower" prices." -- Bobby Lee on Twitter (43 points, 36 comments)
    8. "Everyone knows that we need to reduce the max block size, but is a one-time drop to 300 kB really the best way?" -- theymos (40 points, 68 comments)
    9. Buy bitcoin from any 7-11 in the Philippines (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. The Race Is On for a Bitcoin ETF (31 points, 14 comments)
  9. 1010 points, 17 submissions: 1and1make5
    1. Last 1000 Blocks - Bitcoin Unlimited overtakes soft-fork-segwit signaling (165 points, 25 comments)
    2. Again: Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization - Roger Ver (101 points, 59 comments)
    3. cnLedger on Twitter - "@todu77 Contacted http://BTC.TOP . A different logic was used when dealing w/ (very occasional) empty blc. They'll update to BU only" (94 points, 6 comments)
    4. Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right - Brian Armstrong (93 points, 30 comments)
    5. Last 1000 Blocks - 20% of the Bitcoin mining network supports Bitcoin Unlimited (89 points, 4 comments)
    6. BTC.top current hashrate: ~100 Ph/s (71 points, 5 comments)
    7. Throwback Thursday: BTC.top mined their first BU block 1 month ago with ~31 Ph/s, today they have ~149 Ph/s (68 points, 6 comments)
    8. Epicenter Bitcoin 166 - G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (63 points, 50 comments)
    9. Coinbase Obtains the Bitlicense (53 points, 19 comments)
    10. Fun fact (doesn't mean anything): In the last 24 hours more blocks have signaled support for Bitcoin Unlimited than soft-fork-segwit (53 points, 5 comments)
  10. 984 points, 20 submissions: seweso
    1. Bitcoin unlimited is an expression of freedom. And freedom will always be misconstrued by paternalists/statists as something dangerous. (120 points, 64 comments)
    2. My hope for Bitcoin Unlimited is not to force a hardfork upon everyone, but to break through the censorship, to open minds. (106 points, 88 comments)
    3. Core threatening a POW change makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. (97 points, 58 comments)
    4. "We will run a SegWit release in production by the time [a 2MB hardfork] is released in a version of Bitcoin Core." (94 points, 84 comments)
    5. Blocked by Peter Todd for pointing out he started the propaganda war with his slippery slope video. (92 points, 41 comments)
    6. I can't wait to spend everyone's SegWit funds on a hard-forked >1Mb chain. ~ Seweso (72 points, 72 comments)
    7. BashCo putting his Bitcoin ignorance on display by stating "60,000 #Bitcoin transactions don't just magically appear out of thin air. #spam" (66 points, 12 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core developers discussing and deciding on Bitcoin economics again (47 points, 13 comments)
    9. Reaction to: why-bitcoin-unlimiteds-emergent-consensus-gamble (46 points, 9 comments)
    10. "@seweso Show me an instance where core pushed out a change and cost miners a block reward." ~ I can do that ;) (37 points, 6 comments)
  11. 883 points, 16 submissions: Shock_The_Stream
    1. Emin Gün Sirer: Finally getting to the crux of the battle. LN/Segwit/fee-market are a synonym for "high fees." Nothing about this tech requires high fees. (155 points, 78 comments)
    2. BTC.TOP !! - New Alltime High for BU blocks @199 ! BTC.TOP alone just mined 4 BU blocks within 47 minutes (115 points, 26 comments)
    3. The great halvening of Samson's Segwit Pool: Mission accomplished! 1 yr: 12.50%, 6 month: 11.10%, 1 month: 7.83%, 1week: 6.67%, 4 days: 6% (107 points, 56 comments)
    4. Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ... (107 points, 45 comments)
    5. BS of the week by Rusty Russell: "If segwit doesn't activate, something is badly broken in Bitcoin" (102 points, 97 comments)
    6. Slush pool: Incredible bad luck for the Bitcoin Unlimited voters (43 points, 26 comments)
    7. The Bitfury Attack (43 points, 38 comments)
    8. 799! Jiang Zhuo'er teared down this wall! (40 points, 13 comments)
    9. Did Slush just stop mining segwit with the 'don't care' voters? (39 points, 36 comments)
    10. Fortune favours the bold: BTC.TOP with 300% luck today (30 points, 2 comments)
  12. 754 points, 10 submissions: AQuentson
    1. Price Shoots Up as Miners Checkmate and Bitcoin Unlimited Surpasses Segwit. (113 points, 28 comments)
    2. One Transaction Will Cost $400 if Bitcoin Hits $10,000 According to Jameson Lopp (104 points, 39 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Developer: Satoshi's Design Doesn't Work (100 points, 78 comments)
    4. Wow! Had no idea the BitcoinMarkets subreddit is completely censored. (90 points, 29 comments)
    5. F2Pool Will Not Upgrade Its Bitcoin Pool to Segwit "Anytime Soon" (89 points, 21 comments)
    6. The Bitcoin Market Needs Big Blocks, Says Founder of BTC.TOP Mining Pool (82 points, 21 comments)
    7. Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoins Stuck in Transaction Backlog (72 points, 8 comments)
    8. ViaBTC's Hashrate Increases to 12 Percent (58 points, 2 comments)
    9. “The protocol debate is not my priority." - Jihan Wu, Bitmain's Founder (24 points, 13 comments)
    10. Wow! Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoin is Stuck, Can't Move - What Happens if no Block is Found in One Hour (as has happened before) Will Bitcoin Literally Break Down? (22 points, 14 comments)
  13. 744 points, 10 submissions: BobsBurgers3Bitcoin
    1. Bitcoin Unlimited 1.0.0 has been released (274 points, 130 comments)
    2. Censored in r\Bitcoin: "35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents" (260 points, 123 comments)
    3. 35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents (74 points, 18 comments)
    4. Former Fed Employee Fined $5,000 for Using Computer for Bitcoin (37 points, 5 comments)
    5. Bitcoin: Why It Now Belongs in Every Portfolio (26 points, 0 comments)
    6. Bitcoin is 'a great hedge against the system' and could be the new gold (18 points, 1 comment)
    7. Bitcoin Will Change Money Like the Internet Changed Video (15 points, 0 comments)
    8. Is Warren Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin? (14 points, 3 comments)
    9. Bitseed Review – A Plug & Play Full Bitcoin Node (13 points, 2 comments)
    10. Bitcoin is soaring (and Business Insider does not change the title of the almost identical article published 3 weeks ago by the same author) (13 points, 1 comment)
  14. 732 points, 10 submissions: specialenmity
    1. Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
    2. "Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
    3. In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
    4. Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
    5. luke-jr defines "using bitcoin" as running a full node. Dictates that the cost of moving money ( a transaction) should exceed "using bitcoin". Hah (38 points, 17 comments)
    6. If it's not activating that is a strong evidence that the claims of it being dire were and continue to be without substance. nullc (36 points, 23 comments)
    7. I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
    8. "The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
    9. At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
    10. The flawed mind of jstolfi (13 points, 17 comments)
  15. 708 points, 7 submissions: knight222
    1. BTC.TOP operator: “We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS.” (241 points, 252 comments)
    2. For those who missed it, this is how the hardfork with Bitcoin Unlimited will happen. (173 points, 79 comments)
    3. Blocks mined with Bitcoin Unlimited reaching 18% (133 points, 28 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Unlimited is less than 1% away from outpacing Segwit for the last 1000 blocks mined (90 points, 44 comments)
    5. BU nodes peaked in the last days (28 points, 6 comments)
    6. Blockstream never tried to compromise but they will (too late). This is why: (22 points, 4 comments)
    7. BTC.TOP is having a good day (21 points, 6 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Adrian-X (3622 points, 821 comments)
  2. H0dl (3157 points, 563 comments)
  3. Bitcoinopoly (2732 points, 345 comments)
  4. knight222 (2319 points, 361 comments)
  5. MeTheImaginaryWizard (2043 points, 429 comments)
  6. Ant-n (1818 points, 387 comments)
  7. todu (1756 points, 265 comments)
  8. seweso (1742 points, 328 comments)
  9. awemany (1690 points, 401 comments)
  10. Shock_The_Stream (1647 points, 217 comments)
  11. Helvetian616 (1578 points, 206 comments)
  12. Egon_1 (1478 points, 162 comments)
  13. realistbtc (1299 points, 95 comments)
  14. BitcoinIsTehFuture (1231 points, 139 comments)
  15. LovelyDay (1226 points, 196 comments)
  16. thcymos (1172 points, 117 comments)
  17. BeijingBitcoins (1098 points, 58 comments)
  18. Yheymos (1061 points, 69 comments)
  19. steb2k (1058 points, 238 comments)
  20. ydtm (987 points, 132 comments)
  21. dontcensormebro2 (975 points, 106 comments)
  22. chinawat (972 points, 223 comments)
  23. increaseblocks (934 points, 73 comments)
  24. segregatedwitness (921 points, 101 comments)
  25. Annapurna317 (874 points, 146 comments)
  26. DaSpawn (817 points, 162 comments)
  27. insette (808 points, 91 comments)
  28. TanksAblazment (803 points, 150 comments)
  29. blockstreamcoin (787 points, 133 comments)
  30. MeatsackMescalero (774 points, 95 comments)
  31. satoshis_sockpuppet (745 points, 126 comments)
  32. BitcoinXio (739 points, 50 comments)
  33. jstolfi (734 points, 183 comments)
  34. singularity87 (720 points, 90 comments)
  35. Richy_T (704 points, 163 comments)
  36. redlightsaber (690 points, 138 comments)
  37. Leithm (686 points, 74 comments)
  38. ErdoganTalk (668 points, 252 comments)
  39. BitcoinPrepper (665 points, 89 comments)
  40. reddaxx (664 points, 105 comments)
  41. r1q2 (660 points, 110 comments)
  42. papabitcoin (653 points, 79 comments)
  43. 2ndEntropy (632 points, 76 comments)
  44. FormerlyEarlyAdopter (608 points, 92 comments)
  45. Coolsource (595 points, 116 comments)
  46. Peter__R (589 points, 43 comments)
  47. timepad (570 points, 62 comments)
  48. Rawlsdeep (564 points, 109 comments)
  49. themgp (560 points, 46 comments)
  50. ForkiusMaximus (558 points, 89 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
  2. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" by Egon_1 (529 points, 262 comments)
  3. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." by sandakersmann (472 points, 254 comments)
  4. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. by parban333 (400 points, 207 comments)
  5. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
  6. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. by BeijingBitcoins (307 points, 142 comments)
  7. Massive censorship on "/bitcoin" continues by BitcoinIsTehFuture (296 points, 123 comments)
  8. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "You can talk about anything in BTC and it won't be auto deleted" by BitcoinXio (291 points, 69 comments)
  9. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks exceed Core for first time, 232 vs. 231 of last 1,000 by DNVirtual (282 points, 84 comments)
  10. As relevant as it's always been by iopq (276 points, 15 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  2. 123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  3. 117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
  4. 117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
  5. 113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
  6. 106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  7. 98 points: lon102guy's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  8. 97 points: bigboi2468's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
  9. 92 points: vbuterin's comment in [Mark Friedenbach] There is a reason we are generally up in arms about "abusive" data-on-blockchain proposals: it is because we see the potential of this tech!
  10. 89 points: Peter__R's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Getting Started

Github repo: https://github.com/BitcoinAuthenticatoSubspace

Subspace

P2P Anonymous Messaging Protocol

Abstract

A sketch of a store and forward network that can be used as an alternate communication channel for Bitcoin payments. Over the channel we should be able to anonymously send Bitcoin payments, payment requests, and even arbitrary messages. The idea is loosely based on Mike Hearn’s article ECDH in the Payment Protocol.

Motivation

Privately sending and receiving payments from a lightweight wallet is hard.
Bloom filters and prefix filters, even when used correctly, offer very brittle privacy. Merging coins, in addition to associating previously unassociated transactions, will identify which addresses are in the filter if coinjoin is not used. To use them correctly requires somewhat awkward hacks that involve creating filters much larger than often needed and connecting to multiple peers/servers if additional filters are created. At present no wallet implements filtering correctly.
Sending transactions directly to the recipient over a different channel removes the need to download transactions from the network. Filtering can still be used to query for block inclusion, but isn’t a requirement as this can be done on a one off basis from a different Tor identity each time.
Users should be able to attach a private message for the recipient to the transaction.
Currently, short memos can be attached to transactions, but they are publicly visible for everyone to see. By using an alternative channel we use can use the ‘memo’ field in the BIP70 payment message to attach private messages to transactions.
An alternate communication channel would enable person-to-person payment requests.
BIP70 is limited by several factors: To automatically download a payment request from another user, the sender’s computer needs to remain online (and accepting incoming connections) at all times. This is not feasible for end user wallets.
Payment requests can be manually exported from the wallet and sent over email (or another channel) with the recipient manually importing the file into the wallet, but this clunky and offers poor UX.
Additionally, the payment request model is currently a “pull” model. The ability to “push” a payment request to an end user would enable merchants to bill end users for monthly services.
Utilizing an alternative channel would make payment requests seamless.
The communication would finally enable P2P coinjoin transactions.
At present there are only two coinjoin implementations and both are server based. Segregating coinjoin transactions by server means the pool of available participants is smaller than it need be leading to less robust mixing, longer mix times, and unnecessary centralization. A p2p communication channel could finally enable a single coinjoin protocol for all wallets.
The channel could be used for generic anonymous messaging.
Given the encrypted nature of the channel, it won’t be possible to limit messages to just payments and payment requests. As such, the channel could be extended to enable anonymous messaging between clients.

Why not Bitmessage?

Bitmessage seems like it would be ideal for this purpose, but there are a couple drawbacks. At present all nodes need to download all messages and sort through them. This creates a large overhead that is not appropriate for lightweight clients. There are proposals to add lite client support to Bitmessage, but they have not yet been implemented.
More importantly the proof of work severely harms UX. The white paper suggests targeting a POW time of 4 minutes on an average computer (it currently takes around 1.5 to 2 minutes depending on the system). Compared to current sub-second bitcoin transaction times, Bitmessage would be a major step backwards for the user experience.
Finally it’s a bit of a curious choice to require all nodes (or all nodes in a stream) to store all messages. Unlike Bitcoin, there is no consensus mechanism at play which requires all nodes to store all messages.
Doing so precludes (absent breakthroughs in micro payments) applying market mechanisms to ration scarce resources (disk space) and requires a network run by volunteers using POW as an awkward hack to ration disk space.

Goals

Ideally the store and forward protocol would have the following characteristics:
  1. All messages should be encrypted with only the recipient able to decrypt.
  2. The sender and recipient should be hidden from passive observers.
  3. The protocol should be able to scale to handle an extremely large number of messages.
  4. The protocol should be able to prevent attackers from flooding the network with arbitrary messages.
  5. Anti-Spam mechanisms should not noticeably harm UX.
  6. The protocol should support lightweight queries and user-defined anonymity sets.
  7. The protocol should support market mechanisms (where needed) to ration disk space.

Protocol

Network architecture.
Similar to Mike Hearn’s proposal, the protocol will be run on a network of servers. A user can upload a message to a server using HTTP POST and retrieve a message using a long polling GET.
Rather than using an email-like network however, each server running this protocol will be a node in a distributed hash table (DHT) allowing the servers to query each other for messages they do not have. The following would be a typical message flow:
Alice picks a reliable server (server A) and POSTs an encrypted message to it. Server A inserts the message’s key into the DHT*** Bob makes a GET request from server B. Server B queries the DHT to find the IP address of the server(s) storing the message. Server B connects to Server A and downloads the message. Server B forwards the message to Bob.
In this protocol anyone will be able to run a server. Obviously, clients will need to pick a reliable server with the most uptime. Should a server go offline, the message would be undeliverable and the user would need to resend using a different server.
There would be nothing stopping wallets themselves from being a node in the DHT, but doing so would require them to host their own messages, accept incoming connections, remain permanently online, and likely operate as a hidden service to remain private. Hence, why a network of servers is more attractive.
***In order for a server to serve a message to a client as soon as it’s inserted, the server needs to be made aware of DHT insertions by other servers. The topology of the Kademlia overlay makes for efficient broadcast messaging. Nodes can relay messages to one node per sub-tree who in turn relay it to their own sub-trees. Likely more than one relay node per sub-tree would need to receive the message to insulate from network errors.
Encryption
Messages would be encrypted using a shared secret derived using ECDH and the key found in the user’s stealth address.
Authentication of keys is beyond the scope of this protocol and would be left to wallet developers to figure out what works best.
Message tagging and anonymity sets
Each message would be tagged with a 160 bit number derived in part from the stealth address. The tag would also serve as the ‘key’ used for DHT insertions.
Stealth addresses contain a 32 bit ‘prefix’ and one byte for the ‘length’. The message recipient uses the length parameter to define their anonymity set.
For example, if a length of zero is used, the sender would use a random number as the tag and the recipient would download every message from the network and attempt to decrypt each one using his key. Very similar to how Bitmessage works.
If a length of one is used, the sender would set the first bit in the message tag to the same bit (zero or one) of the stealth address prefix. The remaining bits in the tag would be random.
The recipient would give the server his prefix and the server would return all the messages with tags starting with the same bit. Like before, the user would attempt to decrypt each message. This would effectively reduce the amount of messages the user needs to sort through by 50% (while also decreasing the anonymity set by 50%).
Each additional bit of length reduces the number of returned messages (and anonymity set) by another 50%. A prefix of 4 bits, for example, would return about 6.25% of all messages in the network.
A length of 32 bits would imply the user would only download her messages, minimizing bandwidth but allowing passive observes to know which (encrypted) messages were intended for her.
Scalability
The network described here would scale much better than Bitmessage as the messages would not be stored by the entire network, but rather only by the server to which they were uploaded (and possibly other servers which voluntarily chose to download and store some messages locally for quicker access).
Furthermore, as the on and off ramps to the network, the servers could (if needed) charge a small fee for their services, incentivizing people to start up additional servers when the load gets high and rationing disk space by price rather than proof of work.
Anti-spam
Because messages are not stored by each node (like Bitmessage) we do not need to use a proof-of-work to prevent the network from being overrun with spam messages. Instead, it becomes the responsibility of each server to implement their own anti-spam measures and servers can employ the traditional tactics used by email servers (such as quotas).
Implementing quotas without harming privacy is tricky but doable. The following is one example of how a sender quota system could be done without compromising privacy:
A user creates an account with a server by filling out a captcha and receiving an account number. The client logs in with its account number sends a bunch of blinded tokens to the server. For each message under the quota, the server blind signs a token and returns it to the client. When sending a message, the client attaches an unblinded token. Server verifies its signature, saves the message locally, and inserts the message tag into the DHT.
In this example the server can tell that the message was sent by someone who is under their quota, but it doesn’t know who.
Alternatively, the server could eliminate the quota and charge a fee per N tokens to ration by price.
DDoS
The network of servers would be subject to classical denial of service attacks. However, it will be the responsibility of each server to mitigate against denial of service attacks, not the protocol. Servers with low latency, high up-time, and robust anti-DDoS measures will attract more traffic, which may be a competitive advantage if the server is run on a for-profit model (i.e. leasing storage space).

Summary

The above protocol should satisfy all of ours goals.
  1. All messages are encrypted with only the sender and recipient able to decrypt.
  2. The sender’s identity is not attached to the message at all and the only a user-defined number of bits from the recipient address is attached to the message. In other words, no meaningful data is available to passive observers.
  3. By splitting the message load among servers (possibly with a financial incentive), the network can scale to handle a very large number of messages.
  4. Because the network is server based, servers can implement traditional anti-spam measures without harming user experience.
  5. The protocol supports lightweight queries allowing the user to make the anonymity set/bandwidth tradeoff.
  6. The protocol supports market based rationing mechanisms where necessary.
submitted by drwasho to subspace_p2p [link] [comments]

Trading Bitcoin - Dow Go Stocks! Can $BTC Hodl the Storm? The Bitcoin Group #84 -- Mike Hearn tries to kill Bitcoin - Segregated Witness - Robocoin - Netflix Ep5. How to choose the right Cryptocurrency exchange - Make Money with SnapBots Trading Bitcoin - Anyone Else Noticing BTC Rises on Weekends? Bitcoin Fundamentals: Potential Implications On Price

Ripple and Moneygram entered into a partnership earlier this year, with Ripple agreeing to invest a total of USD 50 million into Moneygram stock, and to buy that stock above marke Bitcoin already has a number of exchanges for converting to and from other currencies; BitcoinFX, New Liberty Standard, Bitcoin Exchange and Bitcoin Market. Bitcoin may last for years and become a popular global currency, or it could be just a flash in the pan, but either way I think this is an important sign of the times to come. A new article by the NY Times featuring Mike Hearn, talking about the block size debate, Greg Maxwell, Gavin, and everything that is going on with bitcoin right now. Sadly, Hearn has sold all his coins according to the article and has left bitcoin. h.. Bitcoin Educator, Developer and Entrepreneur. Book: https://amzn.to/2RSlnTb PGP Fingerprint: C1D7 97BE 7D10 5291 228C D70C FAA6 17E3 2679 E455 An example of such a problem would be if Eve sent a bitcoin to Alice and later sent the same bitcoin to Bob. The bitcoin network guards against double-spending by recording all bitcoin transfers in a ledger (the blockchain) that is visible to all users, and ensuring for all transferred bitcoins that they haven't been previously spent.<ref name ...

[index] [22111] [21529] [15683] [20617] [13644] [26781] [14164] [29287] [16058] [8405]

Trading Bitcoin - Dow Go Stocks! Can $BTC Hodl the Storm?

#passiveincome #bitcoin #cryptotrading How to choose the right Cryptocurrency exchange SnapBots is powered by Snap Innovations, the leading AI financial firm based in Singapore since 2011. Snap ... Get our Free Bitcoin Report: http://crushthestreet.com/bitcoin ORIGINAL ARTICLE TITLE: The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment — Medium (2016-01-14 medium.c... Trading Bitcoin - Dow Go Stocks! Can $BTC Hodl the Storm? 👉 Subscribe so you don't miss the next one: http://bit.ly/2QKVDdV Check below for events and new... BTC Tipjar 12EAXwhbT6JaC2DvGY875SWFMtrzJi8vF1 Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/CarpeNoctom Referral Link 1broker - https://1broker.com/?r=2529 Tweet... Trading Bitcoin - Anyone Else Noticing BTC Rises on Weekends? 👉 Subscribe so you don't miss the next one: http://bit.ly/2QKVDdV Check below for events and...

#