BTC Developer Causes Controversy Suggesting 300kb New ...

"Bitcoin [Core] L1 fees will be much higher than $50 someday, get comfortable with L2."

submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

Am I the only one who think more Bitcoin Full Node flavors are required to increase resilience?

Just found that luke-jr has released another updated version of Bitcoin Knots - https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/eqz9wm/bitcoin_knots_01901knots20200104_released/. This makes me think that why, except for Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knots and Armory (Ref: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet?step=5&platform=windows&features=full_node), there are no more version of Full Node?
Am I the only one, who think, BIG exchanges like CoinBase, Binance or BitMex should have their own flavor or Full Node implementation?
submitted by rockingBit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: The `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` Debate! Chaperones and output tagging and signature replay oh my!

Bitcoin price isn't moving oh no!!! You know WHAT ELSE isn't moving?? SIGHASH_NOINPUT that's what!!!
Now as you should already know, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") just ain't possible without SIGHASH_NOINPUT of some kind or other. And Decker-Russell-Osuntokun removes the toxic waste problem (i.e. old backups of your Poon-Dryja LN channels are actively dangerous and could lose your funds if you recover from them, or worse, your most hated enemy could acquire copies of your old state and make you lose funds). Decker-Russell-Osuntokun also allows multiparticipant offchain cryptocurrency update systems, without the drawback of a large unilateral close timeout that Decker-Wattenhofer does, making this construction better for use at the channel factory layer.
Now cdecker already wrote a some code implementing SIGHASH_NOINPUT before, which would make it work in current pre-SegWit P2PKH, P2SH, as well as SegWit v0 P2WPKH and P2WSH. He also made and published BIP 118.
But as is usual for Bitcoin Core development, this triggered debate, and thus many counterproposals were made and so on. Suffice it to say that the simple BIP 118 looks like it won't be coming into Bitcoin Core anytime soon (or possibly at all).
First things first: This link contains all that you need to know, but hey, maybe you'll find my take more amusing.
So let's start with the main issue.

Signature Replay Attack

The above is the Signature Replay Attack, and the reason why SIGHASH_NOINPUT has triggered debate as to whether it is safe at all and whether we can add enough stuff to it to ever make it safe.
Now of course you could point to SIGHASH_NONE which is even worse because all it does is say "I am authorizing the spend of this particular coin of this particular value protected by my key" without any further restrictions like which outputs it goes to. But then SIGHASH_NONE is intended to be used to sacrifice your money to the miners, for example if it's a dust attack trying to get you to spend, so you broadcast a SIGHASH_NONE signature and some enterprising miner will go get a bunch of such SIGHASH_NONE signatures and gather up the dust in a transaction that pays to nobody and gets all the funds as fees. And besides; even if we already have something you could do stupid things with, it's not a justification for adding more things you could do stupid things with.
So yes, SIGHASH_NOINPUT makes Bitcoin more powerful. Now, Bitcoin is a strong believer in "Principle of Least Power". So adding more power to Bitcoin via SIGHASH_NOINPUT is a violation of Principle of Least Power, at least to those arguing to add even more limits to SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
I believe nullc is one of those who strongly urges for adding more limits to SIGHASH_NOINPUT, because it distracts him from taking pictures of his autonomous non-human neighbor, a rather handsome gray fox, but also because it could be used as the excuse for the next MtGox, where a large exchange inadvertently pays to SIGHASH_NOINPUT-using addresses and becomes liable/loses track of their funds when signature replay happens.

Output Tagging

Making SIGHASH_NOINPUT safer by not allowing normal addresses use it.
Basically, we have 32 different SegWit versions. The current SegWit addresses are v0, the next version (v1) is likely to be the Schnorr+Taproot+MAST thing.
What output tagging proposes is to limit SegWit version ranges from 0->15 in the bech32 address scheme (instead of 0->31 it currently has). Versions 16 to 31 are then not valid bech32 SegWit addresses and exchanges shouldn't pay to it.
Then, we allow the use of SIGHASH_NOINPUT only for version 16. Version 16 might very well be Schnorr+Taproot+MAST, with a side serving of SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
This is basically output tagging. SIGHASH_NOINPUT can only be used if the output is tagged (by paying to version 16 SegWit) to allow it, and addresses do not allow outputs to be tagged as such, removing the potential liability of large custodial services like exchanges.
Now, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun channels have two options:
The tradeoffs in this case are:
The latter tradeoff is probably what would be taken (because we're willing to pay for privacy) if Bitcoin Core decides in favor of tagged outputs.
Another issue here is --- oops, P2SH-Segwit wrapped addresses. P2SH can be used to wrap any SegWit payment script, including payments to any SegWit version, including v16. So now you can sneak in a SIGHASH_NOINPUT-enabled SegWit v16 inside an ordinary P2SH that wraps a SegWit payment. One easy way to close this is just to disallow P2SH-SegWit from being valid if it's spending to SegWit version >= 16.

Chaperone Signatures

Closing the Signature Replay Attack by adding a chaperone.
Now we can observe that the Signature Replay Attack is possible because only one signature is needed, and that signature allows any coin of appropriate value to be spent.
Adding a chaperone signature simply means requiring that the SCRIPT involved have at least two OP_CHECKSIG operations. If one signature is SIGHASH_NOINPUT, then at least one other signature (the chaperone) validated by the SCRIPT should be SIGHASH_ALL.
This is not so onerous for Decker-Russell-Osuntokun. Both sides can use a MuSig of their keys, to be used for the SIGHASH_NOINPUT signature (so requires both of them to agree on a particular update), then use a shared ECDH key, to be used for the SIGHASH_ALL signature (allows either of them to publish the unilateral close once the update has been agreed upon).
Of course, the simplest thing to do would be for a BOLT spec to say "just use this spec-defined private key k so we can sidestep the Chaperone Signatures thing". That removes the need to coordinate to define a shared ECDH key during channel establishment: just use the spec-indicated key, which is shared to all LN implementations.
But now look at what we've done! We've subverted the supposed solution of Chaperone Signatures, making them effectively not there, because it's just much easier for everyone to use a standard private key for the chaperone signature than to derive a separate new keypair for the Chaperone.
So chaperone signatures aren't much better than just doing SIGHASH_NOINPUT by itself, and you might as well just use SIGHASH_NOINPUT without adding chaperones.
I believe ajtowns is the primary proponent of this proposal.

Toys for the Big Boys

The Signature Replay Attack is Not A Problem (TM).
This position is most strongly held by RustyReddit I believe (he's the Rusty Russell in the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun). As I understand it, he is more willing to not see SIGHASH_NOINPUT enabled, than to have it enabled but with restrictions like Output Tagging or Chaperone Signatures.
Basically, the idea is: don't use SIGHASH_NOINPUT for normal wallets, in much the same way you don't use SIGHASH_NONE for normal wallets. If you want to do address reuse, don't use wallet software made by luke-jr that specifically screws with your ability to do address reuse.
SIGHASH_NOINPUT is a flag for use by responsible, mutually-consenting adults who want to settle down some satoshis and form a channel together. It is not something that immature youngsters should be playing around with, not until they find a channel counterparty that will treat this responsibility properly. And if those immature youngsters playing with their SIGHASH_NOINPUT flags get into trouble and, you know, lose their funds (as fooling around with SIGHASH_NOINPUT is wont to do), well, they need counseling and advice ("not your keys not your coins", "hodl", "SIGHASH_NOINPUT is not a toy, but something special, reserved for those willing to take on the responsibility of making channels according to the words of Decker-Russell-Osuntokun"...).

Conclusion

Dunno yet. It's still being debated! So yeah. SIGHASH_NOINPUT isn't moving, just like Bitcoin's price!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Hard coded UTXO checkpoints are the way to go. They're safe. They're necessary.

Update 3:
Pieter convinced me in the comments of his Stack Exchange answer that these checkpoints don't give any material improvement over assumevalid and assumeutxo. He made me realize why my Case IV below would not actually cause a huge disruption for assumevalid users. So I rescind my call for UTXO checkpoints.
However, I maintain that UTXO checkpoints done properly (with checkpoints sufficiently in the past) are not a security model change and would not meaningfully alter consensus. It sounded like Pieter agreed with me on that point as well.
I think UTXO checkpoints might still be a useful tool
I will call for Assume UTXO tho. It plus assumevalid adds pretty much much all the same benefits as my proposal.
OP:
Luke Jr has been proposing lowering the maximum block size to 300mb in order to limit how long it takes a new node to sync up. He makes the good point that if processor power is growing at only 17%/year, that's how much we can grow the number of transactions a new node needs to verify on initial sync.
But limiting the blocksize is not the only way to do it. As I'm sure you can foresee from the title, I believe the best way to do it is a hardcoded checkpoint built into the software (eg bitcoin core). This is safe, this is secure, and it is a scalability improvement that has no downsides.
So what is a hardcoded checkpoint? This would consist of a couple pieces of data being hardcoded into the source code of any bitcoin full-node software. The data would be a blockheight, block hash, and UTXO hash. With those three pieces of information, a new client can download the block at that height and the UTXO set built up to that height, and then it can verify that the block and UTXO set are correct because they both have the correct hashes.
This way, a new node can start syncing from that height rather than from the first block ever mined. What does this improve?
While not strictly necessary, its likely that the UTXO data would come from the same source as the software, since otherwise full nodes would have to store UTXO sets at multiple block heights just in case someone asks for it as part of their checkpoint. Also, full-nodes should store block information going back historically significantly further than their checkpoint, so they have data to pass to clients that have an earlier checkpoint. So perhaps if a client is configured for a checkpoint 6 months ago, it should probably still store block data from up to 2 years ago (tho it wouldn't need to verify all that data - or rather, verifying it would be far simpler because the header chain connecting to their checkpoint block would all that needs to be validated).
To be perfectly clear, I'm absolutely not suggesting a live checkpoint beacon that updates the software on-the-fly from a remote source. That is completely unsafe and insecure, because it forces you to trust that one source. At any time, whoever controls the live source could disrupt millions of people by broadcasting an invalid block or a block on a malicious chain. So I'm NOT suggesting having a central source, or even any distributed set of sources, that automatically send checkpoint information to clients that connect to it. That would 100% be unsafe. What I'm suggesting is a checkpoint hardcoded into the software, which can be safely audited.
So is a hardcoded checkpoint safe and secure? Yes it is. Bitcoin software already needs to be audited. That's why you should never use bitcoin software that isn't open source. So by including the three pieces of data described above, all you're doing is adding a couple more things that need to be audited. If you're downloading a bitcoin software binary without auditing it yourself, then you already take on the risk of trusting the distributor of that binary, and adding hardcoded checkpoints does not increase that risk at all.
However, most people can't even audit the bitcoin software if they wanted to. Most people aren't programmers and can't feasibly understand the code. Not so for the checkpoints. The checkpoints could easily be audited by anyone who runs a full node, or anyone who can check block hashes and UTXO hashes from multiple sources they trust. Auditing the hardcoded checkpoint would be so easy we could sell T shirts that say "I helped audit Bitcoin source code!"
The security profile of a piece of bitcoin node software with hardcoded checkpoints or without hardcoded checkpoints is identical. Not similar. Not almost. Actually identical. There is no downside.
Imagine this twice-a-year software release process:
Month 0: After the last release, development on the next release start (or rather, continues).
Month 3: The next candidate version of the software is finalized, including a checkpoint from some non-contentious distance ago, say 1 month ago.
Month 6: After 3 months of auditing and bug fixing, the software is released. At this point, the checkpoint would be 4 months old.
In this process, downloading the latest version of bitcoin software would mean the maximum months of blocks you have to sync is 10 months (if you download and run the software the day before the next release happens). This process is safe, its secure, its auditable, and it saves tons of processing time and harddrive space. This also means that it would allow bitcoin full nodes to be run by lower-power computers, and would allow more people to run full nodes. I think everyone can agree that outcome would be a good one.
So why do we need this change? Because 300kb blocks is the alternative. That's not enough space, even with the lightning network. I'm redacting the previous because I don't have the data to support it and I don't think its necessary to argue that we need this change.
So why do we need this change? This change represents a substantial scalability improvement from O(n) to O(Δn). It removes a major bottleneck to increasing on-chain transaction throughput, reducing fees, increasing user security as well as network-wide security (through more full nodes), or a combination of those.
What does everyone think?
Update:
I think its useful to think of 4 different types of users relevant in the hypothetical scenario where Bitcoin adopts this kind of proposal:
  1. Upfront Auditors - Early warnings
  2. After-the-fact Auditors - Late warnings
  3. Non-full-auditors - Late warnings
  4. Non full nodes - No warnings
Upfront auditors look at the source code of the software they use, the keep up to date with changes, and they make sure that what they're running looks good to them. They're almost definitely building directly from source code - no binaries for them. They'll alert people to a problem potentially before buggy or malicious software is even released. In this scenario, their security is obviously unchanged because they're not taking advantage of the check-pointing feature. We want to encourage as many people as possible to do this and to make it as easy as possible to do.
After-the-fact Auditors want to start a new node and start using Bitcoin immediately. They want to audit, but are ok with a period of time where they're trusting the code to be connecting the chain they want. They take on a slight amount of personal risk here, but once they back-validate the chain, they can sound the alert if there is a validation problem.
Non-full-auditors are simply content to trust that the software is good. They'll run the node without looking at most or any of the code. They take on more risk than After-the-fact Auditors, but their risk is not actually much worse than After-the-fact Auditors. Why? Because as soon as you're sure you're on the right chain (ie you do a few monetary transactions with people who accept your bitcoin), you're golden for as long as you use that node and the part of the chain it validated. The can also still help the network to pretty much the same degree as After-the-fact Auditors, because if there are a problem with their transactions, they can sound the alarm about a problem with that software.
Non full nodes obviously have less security and they don't help the network.
So why did I bother to talk about these different types of users?
Well, we obviously want as many Upfront auditors as possible. However, doing that out of the starting gate is time consuming. It takes time to audit the code and time to sync the blockchain. Its costly. For this reason, for better or worse, most people simply won't do it.
Without checkpoints, we don't have type 2 or type 3 users. The only alternative to being an Upfront Auditor is to be an SPV node that doesn't help the network and is less secure. With checkpoints, we could potentially change many of those people who would just use SPV to doing something much more helpful for the network.
One of the huge benefits of After-the-fact Auditors and Non-full-auditors is that once they're on the network, they can act like Upfront Auditors in the next release. Maybe they're not auditing the source code, but they can sure audit the checkpoint very easily. That means they can also sound the alarm before malicious or broken software is released, just like Upfront Auditors. Why? Because they now have a chain they believe to be the true one (with an incredibly high degree of confidence).
What this means is that Upfront Auditors, After-the-fact Auditors, and Non-full-auditors help the network to a very similar degree. If software that doesn't sync to the right chain, they will find out about it and alert others. Type 2 and 3 take on personal risk, but they don't put the network at greater risk, like SPV nodes do.
If we can convert most Non-full nodes into Type 2 or Type 3 users, that would be massive gain for the security of Bitcoin. Luke Jr said it himself, making nodes that support the network as easy as possible to run is critical. This is one good way to do that.
Update 2: Comparison to -assumevalid and why using checkpoints upgrades scalability
The -assumevalid option allows nodes to skip validation of blocks before the hardcoded golden block hash. This is similar to my proposal, but has a critical difference. A node with -assumevalid on (which I've heard is the default now) will still validate the whole chain in the case that a longer chain is floating around. Because of this, -assumevalid can be an optimization that works as long as there's no other longer chain also claiming to be bitcoin floating around the network.
The important points brought up by the people that wrote and discussed adding this feature was that:
A. Its not a change in security model, and
B. Its not a change in consensus rules.
This meant that it was a pure implementation detail that would never and could never change what chain your node follows.
The checkpoints I'm describing are different. On point A, some have said that checkpoints are a security model change, and I've addressed that above. I'd like to add that there is no way for bitcoin to be 100% trustless. That is impossible. Bitcoin at the deepest level is a specified protocol many people have agreed to use together. In order to join that group even on the most fundamental level, you need to find the spec people are agreeing to use. You have to trust that the person or people that gave you a copy of that spec gave you the right one. If different people claim that different specs are "bitcoin", you have to choose which people to trust. The same is true of checkpoints. New entrants want to join the network that the people they care about interacting with believe is Bitcoin, and those are the people they will trust to get the spec, or the source code, or the hash of the UTXO set. This is why I say the security profile of Bitcoin with checkpoints is identical to Bitcoin without checkpoints. The amount of trust you have to put in your social network is not materially different.
While its not a security model change, as I've supported above, using checkpoints is consensus rules change. Every new checkpoint would change the consensus rules. However, I would argue this isn't a problem as long as those checkpoints are at a non-contentious number of blocks ago. While it would change consensus rules, it should not change consensus at all. There are 4 scenarios to consider:
I. There's no contention.
II. There's a long-range reorg from before the checkpoint.
III. There exists a contentious public chain that branched before the checkpoint would usually be taken.
IV. There exists an invalid chain that's longer than the valid chain.
In case I, none of it matters, and checkpoints have pretty much exactly the same result as -assumevalid.
In case II, Bitcoin has much bigger problems. Its simply unacceptable for Bitcoin to allow for long-range reorgs, so this case must be prevented entirely. The downsides of a long-range reorg for bitcoin without checkpoints is MUCH MUCH larger than the additional downsides with checkpoints.
In case III, the obvious solution is to checkpoint from an earlier non-contentious blockheight, so nodes validate both chains.
Case IV is where things really differ between checkpoints and -assumevalid. In this case, nodes using a checkpoint will only validate blocks after the checkpoint. However, nodes using -assumevalid will be forced to validate both chains back to their branch-point.
I don't believe there are other relevant cases, but as long as checkpoints are chosen from non-contentious heights and have time to be audited, there is no possibility that honestly-run bitcoin software would in any way affect the consensus for what chain is the right chain.
This brings me back to why checkpoints upgrades scalability, and -assumevalid does not. Case IV is the case that prevents -assumevalid from being a scalability improvement. You want new nodes to be able to sync to the network relatively quickly, so say the 90th percentile of machines should be able to do it in less than a week (or maybe we want to ensure sync happens within a day - that's up for debate). With checkpoints, invalid chains branched before the checkpoint will not disrupt new entrants to the network. With -assumevalid, those invalid change will disrupt new entrants. Since an invalid chain can have branched arbitrarily far in the past, this disruption could be arbitrarily large.
One way to deal with this is to ensure that most machines can handle validating not only the whole valid chain, but the whole invalid chain as well. The other way to deal with this is checkpoints.
So back to scalability, with checkpoints all we need to ensure is that the lowest power machines we want to support can sync in a timely manner back to the checkpoint.
submitted by fresheneesz to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

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

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

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

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

Top Commenters

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

Top Submissions

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

Top Comments

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

Hardcoded UTXO checkpoints are an enormous scalability improvement.

Update 3:
Pieter Wuille convinced me in the comments of his Stack Exchange answer that these checkpoints don't give any material improvement over assumevalid and assumeutxo. He made me realize why my Case IV (see the other post) would not actually cause a huge disruption for assumevalid users. So I rescind my call for UTXO checkpoints.
However, I maintain that UTXO checkpoints done properly (with checkpoints sufficiently in the past) are not a security model change and would not meaningfully alter consensus. It sounded like Pieter agreed with me on that point as well.
I think UTXO checkpoints might still be a useful tool
I will call for Assume UTXO tho. It plus assumevalid adds pretty much much all the same benefits as my proposal.
OP:
Hardcoded checkpoints are a piece of code in a Bitcoin node software source code that define a blockheight, a block hash, and a UTXO hash as valid. A new Bitcoin node would only need to validate blocks back to the golden blockheight, greatly reducing initial sync time.
This would not change Bitcoin's security model. And while it does add a consensus rule, it would not actually ever have any significant likelihood of changing what the consensus is for which chain is the true chain as long as the checkpoints are taken from a non-contentious blockheight (say 1 month ago, since a reorg from a block 1 month ago is basically impossible).
What checkpoints would do is allow much lower-power machines to be used as fully-validating nodes on the network, which would substantially increase Bitcoin's security.
Luke Jr has been proposing lowering the blocksize to 300mb, and he has a point. Processor power is the bottleneck for spinning up new full nodes, and processor power isn't growing like it used to. Even tho he has a point, I believe that ship has sailed and it's unlikely that we'll roll back the max block size. But what that means is that even if we stay with the current max blocksize of around 2MB, initial sync time will go up and up for decades before coming back down to reasonable levels in over 40 years. That's a scary thought.
Checkpoints is an alternative to that scenario that I believe has no downside, and only upsides. See the discussion happening on BitcoinDiscussion.
submitted by fresheneesz to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

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

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

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

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

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

Full blocks are not a disaster

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

Segwit

What is segwit

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

Why is segwit being blocked

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

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

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

What if segwit never activates

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

Lightning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

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

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

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

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

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

Fighting off 2x HF

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

Misinformation / sockpuppets

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

History

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

Misc (mostly memes)

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

I'm an early Bitcoin adopter. As of today, I own no Bitcoin. RaiBlocks is my biggest holding. Here are my thoughts regarding the current situation.

I might get some shit for this, even from this community. I was an early adopter in Bitcoin since 2013 when the BTC price was in double digits. I didn't buy an insane amount, but I also didn't sell until mid to late 2017. I held through the Mt. Gox scandal, Silk Road shutdown, all of the China bannings... The first time I sold any was when Jihan and his crew announced that they would hard fork. The community had already become toxic, and everything you saw on Reddit was related to the "war" and how other coins sucked. This was in contrast to the good ol' days when you could go online and read about the technology and its progress. Despite all of the drama, I was still a Bitcoin fanatic. I didn't like Ethereum at the time because all of the Ethereum fanboys were talking shit about Bitcoin and how "the flippening" was coming, and I was on the "Bitcoin side."
Slowly, I had started to lose faith in Bitcoin due to this ever-worsening dipolar situation where the Bitcoin fans had divided into Core supporters vs Bcash supporters. The Core devs would absolutely refuse to allow 2mb blocks (and mentally insane Luke Jr even wants to reduce BTC blocksize), and the Bitcoin Cash fans wanted endless blocksize with no Segwit or other improvements. Kind of like Democrat versus Republican where you need to be one or the other, or else you don't fit in.
There is an old Arab proverb: “I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I and my brother and my cousin against the world.” Unfortunately we are still not at the point where we can act amicably towards one another - even in cases where two coins are not direct competitors... And I realize now how I got sucked into the Bitcoin cult and the r-bitcoin vs r-btc war. I realize that I had slowly become blind.
In late 2017, I was still moving BTC around in contrast to some people who put it into cold storage and forget about it. I was quickly becoming tired of waiting to see if my $15 fee transaction would get me into the next block or three. I was tired of waiting to see when my transaction would get its first confirmation. I would wait between one hour and days to see when my transaction got a certain amount of confirmations.
In the early days of Bitcoin, the most popular meme and one of the few memes posted was comparing the transaction costs of Western Union and MoneyGram to Bitcoin.
In early December I sold some BTC for RaiBlocks. It was a new technology that I didn't know much about (relative to Bitcoin, which I know a lot about), and it wasn't popular at all. When I read more about Raiblocks, I sold all of my "faster" altcoins into it (i.e. Litecoin and Vertcoin). And even more of the "king" Bitcoin.
I grow tired of people trying to make a quick buck while fomo'ing into shitcoins and not caring about technology or purpose.
Bitcoin no longer deserves to be in the #1 spot. As of today, I own no Bitcoin. I sold every last bit of it. I put it into RaiBlocks and Monero, and Ethereum. I put my money in the coins that deserve it. The coins that the world needs. And the three biggest needs in my opinion are that of a fast, digital, decentalized currency with no fees; a complete privacy coin that may be slower and higher in fee; and a platform for applications. Bitcoin is the next Myspace. It no longer solves a problem or fulfills a need.
Nano. Monero. Ethereum.
Nano/RaiBlocks is doing remarkably well despite these exchange problems. The developers are doing a remarkable job. Hell, even BitGrail may be doing a really good job with respect to the amount of resources they have. Remember the saying "be greedy when others are fearful"? Stop being so god damn impatient!
If Nano were to fail for some weird reason, then so be it. I'll see you guys later, one way or another. Either on the sea floor or the moon.
submitted by MoneroMoonbase to RaiTrade [link] [comments]

Lightning Network Will Likely Fail Due To Several Possible Reasons

ECONOMIC CASE IS ABSENT FOR MANY TRANSACTIONS
The median Bitcoin (BTC) fee is $14.41 currently. This has gone parabolic in the past few days. So, let’s use a number before this parabolic rise, which was $3.80. Using this number, opening and closing a Lightning Network (LN) channel means that you will pay $7.60 in fees. Most likely, the fee will be much higher for two reasons:
  1. BTC fees have been trending higher all year and will be higher by the time LN is ready
  2. When you are in the shoe store or restaurant, you will likely pay a higher fee so that you are not waiting there for one or more hours for confirmation.
Let’s say hypothetically that Visa or Paypal charges $1 per transaction. This means that Alice and Carol would need to do 8 or more LN transactions, otherwise it would be cheaper to use Visa or Paypal.
But it gets worse. Visa doesn’t charge the customer. To you, Visa and Cash are free. You would have no economic incentive to use BTC and LN.
Also, Visa does not charge $1 per transaction. They charge 3%, which is 60 cents on a $20 widget. Let’s say that merchants discount their widgets by 60 cents for non-Visa purchases, to pass the savings onto the customer. Nevertheless, no one is going to use BTC and LN to buy the widget unless 2 things happen:
  1. they buy more than 13 widgets from the same store ($7.60 divided by 60 cents)
  2. they know ahead of time that they will do this with that same store
This means that if you’re traveling, or want to tip content producers on the internet, you will likely not use BTC and LN. If you and your spouse want to try out a new restaurant, you will not use BTC and LN. If you buy shoes, you will not use BTC and LN.
ROAD BLOCKS FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
Some argue that you do not need to open a channel to everyone, if there’s a route to that merchant. This article explains that if LN is a like a distributed mesh network, then another problem exists:
"third party needs to possess the necessary capital to process the transaction. If Alice and Bob do not have an open channel, and Alice wants to send Bob .5 BTC, they'll both need to be connected to a third party (or a series of 3rd parties). Say if Charles (the third party) only possesses .4 BTC in his respective payment channels with the other users, the transaction will not be able to go through that route. The longer the route, the more likely that a third party does not possess the requisite amount of BTC, thereby making it a useless connection.”
CENTRALIZATION
According to this visualization of LN on testnet, LN will be centralized around major hubs. It might be even more centralized than this visualization if the following are true:
  1. Users will want to connect to large hubs to minimize the number of times they need to open/close channels, which incur fees
  2. LN’s security and usability relies on 100% uptime of relaying parties
  3. Only large hubs with a lot of liquidity will be able to make money
  4. Hubs or intermediary nodes will need to be licensed as money transmitters, centralizing LN to exchanges and banks as large hubs
What will the impact be on censorship-resistance, trust-less and permission-less?
NEED TO BE LICENSED AS MONEY TRANSMITTER
Advocates for LN seem to talk a lot about the technology, but ignore the legalities.
FinCEN defines money transmitters. LN hubs and intermediary nodes seem to satisfy this definition.
Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
“…applicability of the regulations … to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.”
“…an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter…”
"An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations…”
"FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.””
"The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.”
FinCEN’s regulations for IVTS:
"An “informal value transfer system” refers to any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.”
“…IVTS… must comply with all BSA registration, recordkeeping, reporting and AML program requirements.
“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are transferred on behalf of the public by any and all means including, but not limited to, transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…regulations require all money transmitting businesses…to register with FinCEN."
Mike Caldwell used to accept and mail bitcoins. Customers sent him bitcoins and he mailed physical bitcoins back or to a designated recipient. There is no exchange from one type of currency to another. FinCEN told him that he needed to be licensed as money transmitter, after which Caldwell stopped mailing out bitcoins.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEED FOR LICENSING
Some have argued that LN does not transfer BTC until the channel is closed on the blockchain. This is not a defence, since channels will close on the blockchain.
Some have argued that LN nodes do not take ownership of funds. Is this really true? Is this argument based on a technicality or hoping for a loophole? It seems intuitive that a good prosecutor can easily defeat this argument. Even if this loophole exists, can we count on the government to never close this loophole?
So, will LN hubs and intermediary nodes need to be licensed as money transmitters? If so, then Bob, who is the intermediary between Alice and Carol, will need a license. But Bob won’t have the money nor qualifications. Money transmitters need to pay $25,000 to $1 million, maintain capital levels and are subject to KYC/AML regulations1. In which case, LN will have mainly large hubs, run by financial firms, such as banks and exchanges.
Will the banks want this? Likely. Will they lobby the government to get it? Likely.
Some may be wondering about miners. FinCEN has declared that miners are not money transmitters:
https://coincenter.org/entry/aml-kyc-tokens :
"Subsequent administrative rulings clarified several remaining ambiguities: miners are not money transmitters…"
FinCEN Declares Bitcoin Miners, Investors Aren't Money Transmitters
Some argue that LN nodes will go through Tor and be anonymous. For this to work, will all of the nodes connecting to it, need to run Tor? If so, then how likely will this happen and will all of these people need to run Tor on every device (laptop, phone and tablet)? Furthermore, everyone of these people will be need to be sufficiently tech savvy to download, install and set up Tor. Will the common person be able to do this? Also, will law-abiding nodes, such as retailers or banks, risk their own livelihood by connecting to an illegal node? What is the likelihood of this?
Some argue that unlicensed LN hubs can run in foreign countries. Not true. According to FinCEN: "“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are…transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…” Also, foreign companies are not immune from the laws of other countries which have extradition agreements. The U.S. government has sued European banks over the LIBOR scandal. The U.S. government has charged foreign banks for money laundering and two of those banks pleaded guilty. Furthermore, most countries have similar laws. It is no coincidence that European exchanges comply with KYC/AML.
Will licensed, regulated LN hubs connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. Will Amazon or eBay connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. If you want to buy from Amazon, you’ll likely need to register yourself at a licensed, regulated LN hub, which means you’ll need to provide your identification photo.
Say goodbye to a censorship-resistant, trust-less and permission-less coin.
For a preview of what LN will probably look like, look at Coinbase or other large exchanges. It’s a centralized, regulated and censored hub. Coinbase allows users to send to each other off-chain. Coinbase provides user data to the IRS and disallows users from certain countries to sell BTC. You need to trust that no rogue employee in the exchange will steal your funds, or that a bank will not confiscate your funds as banks did in Cyprus. What if the government provides a list of users, who are late with their tax returns, to Coinbase and tells Coinbase to block those users from making transactions? You need Coinbase’s permission.
This would be the antithesis of why Satoshi created Bitcoin.
NEED TO REPORT TO IRS
The IRS has a definition for “third party settlement organization” and these need to report transactions to the IRS.
Though we do not know for sure yet, it can be argued that LN hubs satisfies this definition. If this is the case, who will be willing to be LN hubs, other than banks and exchanges?
To read about the discussion, go to:
Lightning Hubs Will Need To Report To IRS
COMPLEXITY
All cryptocurrencies are complicated for the common person. You may be tech savvy enough to find a secure wallet and use cryptocurrencies, but the masses are not as tech savvy as you.
LN adds a very complicated and convoluted layer to cryptocurrencies. It is bound to have bugs for years to come and it’s complicated to use. This article provides a good explanation of the complexity. Just from the screenshot of the app, the user now needs to learn additional terms and commands:
“On Chain”
“In Channels”
“In Limbo”
“Your Channel”
“Create Channel”
“CID”
“OPENING”
“PENDING-OPEN”
“Available to Receive”
“PENDING-FORCE-CLOSE”
There are also other things to learn, such as how funds need to be allocated to channels and time locks. Compare this to using your current wallet.
Recently, LN became even more complicated and convoluted. It needs a 3rd layer as well:
Scaling Bitcoin Might Require A Whole 'Nother Layer
How many additional steps does a user need to learn?
ALL COINS PLANNING OFF-CHAIN SCALING ARE AT RISK
Bitcoin Segwit, Litecoin, Vertcoin and possibly others (including Bitcoin Cash) are planning to implement LN or layer 2 scaling. Ethereum is planning to use Raiden Network, which is very similar to LN. If the above is true about LN, then the scaling roadmap for these coins is questionable at best, nullified at worst.
BLOCKSTREAM'S GAME PLAN IS ON TRACK
Blockstream employs several of the lead Bitcoin Core developers. Blockstream has said repeatedly that they want high fees. Quotes and source links can be found here.
Why is Blockstream so adamant on small blocks, high fees and off-chain scaling?
Small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations create demand for off-chain solutions, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. LN will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This will be the main way that Blockstream will generate revenue for its investors, who invested $76 million. Otherwise, they can go bankrupt and die.
One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by bankers and politicians (former prime ministers and nation leaders). According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” LN helps Bilderberg Group get one step closer to its goal.
Luke-Jr is one of the lead BTC developers in Core/Blockstream. Regulation of BTC is in-line with his beliefs. He is a big believer in the government, as he believes that the government should tax you and the “State has authority from God”. In fact, he has other radical beliefs as well:
So, having only large, regulated LN hubs is not a failure for Blockstream/Bilderberg. It’s a success. The title of this article should be changed to: "Lightning Will Fail Or Succeed, Depending On Whether You Are Satoshi Or Blockstream/Bilderberg".
SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENTS WITH ON-CHAIN SCALING
Meanwhile, some coins such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash are pushing ahead with on-chain scaling. Both are looking at Sharding.
Visa handles 2,000 transactions per second on average. Blockstream said that on-chain scaling will not work. The development teams for Bitcoin Cash have shown significant on-chain scaling:
1 GB block running on testnet demonstrates over 10,000 transactions per second:
"we are not going from 1MB to 1GB tomorrow — The purpose of going so high is to prove that it can be done — no second layer is necessary”
"Preliminary Findings Demonstrate Over 10,000 Transactions Per Second"
"Gigablock testnet initiative will likely be implemented first on Bitcoin Cash”
Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford At 13:55 in this video, Rizun said that he thinks that Visa level can be achieved with a 4-core/16GB machine with better implementations (modifying the code to take advantage of parallelization.)
Bitcoin Cash plans to fix malleability and enable layer 2 solutions:
The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet:
"fixing malleability and enabling Layer 2 solutions will happen”
However, it is questionable if layer 2 will work or is needed.
GOING FORWARD
The four year scaling debate and in-fighting is what caused small blockers (Blockstream) to fork Bitcoin by adding Segwit and big blockers to fork Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash. Read:
Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained
It will be interesting to see how they scale going forward.
Scaling will be instrumental in getting network effect and to be widely adopted as a currency. Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most) (BTC has little network effect, and it's shrinking.)
The ability to scale will be key to the long term success of any coin.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - December 2018

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 24th monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in December 2018
Adoption * Some statistics on Localbitcoins in Venezuela (2 Dec) * The Lightning Network has grown from 4 btc capacity to 450 since February (5 Dec) * Cash App by Square is the #1 app in the US app store (8 Dec) * Someone buys drinks using bitcoin in a bar in Paris (12 Dec) * The Lightning Network reaches 500 btc in network capacity (21 Dec) * A visualization of 15k lightning network channels (23 Dec) * Several content creators are being banned or abandoning Patreon and considering bitcoin (27 Dec)
Development * A list of possible future changes to Bitcoin by Luke Dash Jr (6 Dec) * Someone creates a Lightning Network micropayment button (7 Dec) * A discussion on the LNTipBot (8 Dec) * The rise of the all-in-one Bitcoin & Lightning node (10 Dec) * The first Bitcoin Lightning to ERC20 Atomic Swap (12 Dec) * A discussion on Schnorr and Taproot on the Bitcoin development mailing list (14 Dec) * Bitcoin Core 0.17.1 is released (25 Dec) * Someone creates an offline tool that fixes mistyped private keys or fixes missing characters (30 Dec)
Security * Some people stole $3.3M in cryptocurrency from over 100 smartphones (7 Dec) * A warning not to use single-address website-generated paper wallets (19 Dec) * Someone proposes January 3rd as an “independence day” where users should control their keys (22 Dec) * A discussion on security against quantum computing attacks in Bitcoin (25 Dec) * Someone’s Electrum Wallet got hacked through a sophisticated attack (27 Dec) * All major hardware wallets were hacked at CCC35 once the physical devices were altered (27 Dec) * A response from Trezor and Ledger on the “hackings” (28 Dec)
Mining * Bitcoin gets its second biggest drop in mining difficulty at -15% (3 Dec) * The Bitcoin mining difficulty is down 31.5% from its peak while hashrate is still increasing (21 Dec)
Business * Bitfury presents the Lightning Network coffee machine (2 Dec) * Bitmain Q3 2018 results show a $740M loss (4 Dec) * Shakepay adds a feature that turns spare change from purchases into bitcoin (13 Dec) * Blockstream satellite coverage is now worldwide (18 Dec) * Tim Draper invests $1.25M in OpenNode (18 Dec) * BlueWallet introduces the MVP of its zero-configuration Lightning payments on iOS and Android (20 Dec) * Bitmain to lay off 50% of its workforce (25 Dec) * Bakkt raises $182.5M (31 Dec)
Education * An updated beginner’s guide on how to build an online store and accept bitcoin payments without coding (1 Dec) * A video discussing the manipulation going on with the bitcoin price by financial institutions (1 Dec) * A video explainer of hashed time lock contracts and routing on the Lightning Network (9 Dec) * A discussion on exchanges and Blockchain-based identities (26 Dec) * An explanation of Lightning Network payment channels (29 Dec)
Regulation & Politics * bitcoin speculation in Denmark has a 53-65% profit tax (5 Dec) * Coinbase executives are allegedly lobbying regulators with lies about bitcoin (20 Dec) * Lawmakers want to change the SEC’s 72-year old securities definition to exclude cryptocurrency (20 Dec) * The US Chief of Staff says Bitcoin is good as it’s out of the hands of governments (17 Dec)
Archeology (Financial Incumbents) * Western Union CEO says they are prepared to add cryptocurrencies when it is necessary (18 Dec)
Price & Trading * The Japanese Yen surpasses the US Dollar as the most traded fiat pair (26 Dec) * The total profit from buying and selling bitcoin on each day of 2017 and 2018 (30 Dec)
Fun & Other * Someone wears a buy bitcoin vest at protests in Paris(1 Dec) * Bitcoin reaches 1 million subscribers (3 Dec) * A discussion on the meaning of “Hodl” (8 Dec) * Coinbase recently moved 856k bitcoins (10 Dec) * An interview with Nick Szabo (11 Dec) * 10-year jail term sought for former Mt Gox CEO Mark Karpeles (12 Dec) * Predictions from 1995 on why the Internet won’t work] (15 Dec) * Timothy C May, the writer of the Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, passes away (15 Dec) * Someone helps a user recover their funds after sending litecoin to a bitcoin address (16 Dec) * A user shows their Bitcoin full node and Lightning node (19 Dec) * Cryptograffiti sells an artwork for 1 millisatoshi (20 Dec) * A discussion on dual economies with bitcoin as the Internet currency (23 Dec) * 2018 was a successful year for Bitcoin in terms of network performance (24 Dec) * A list of a few holiday destinations that are Bitcoin-friendly (28 Dec) * How Amara’s law applies to Bitcoin (29 Dec) * A reminder of the Pineapple fund (31 Dec) * Tony Robbins tweets about Bitcoin to his 3M followers (31 Dec) * TIME magazine on why Bitcoin matters for freedom (31 Dec)
Oh yes, Happy New Year. Let's do our best to keep this subreddit a great place!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Summary
Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it.
I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater".
SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while.
But then we all learned that:
And we also got much better solutions: such as market-based blocksize with Bitcoin Unlimited - way better than SegWit's arbitrary, random centrally-planned, too-little-too-late 1.7MB "max blocksize".
This is why more and more people are rejecting SegWit - and instead installing Bitcoin Unlimited.
In my case, as I gradually learned about the disastrous consequences which SegWit-as-a-soft-fork-hack would have, my intial single OP in December 2015 expressing outspoken support for SegWit soon turned to an avalanche of outspoken opposition to SegWit.
Details
Core / Blockstream lost my support on SegWit - and it's all their fault.
How did Core / Blockstream turn me from an outspoken SegWit supporter to an outspoken SegWit opponent?
It was simple: They made the totally unnecessary (and dangerous) decision to program SegWit as a messy and dangerous soft-fork which would:
  • create a massive new threat vector by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
  • force yet-another random / arbitrary / centrally planned "max blocksize" on everyone (previously 1 MB, now 1.7MB - still pathetically small and hard-coded!).
Meanwhile, new, independent dev teams which are smaller and much better than the corrupt, fiat-financed Core / Blockstream are offering simpler and safer solutions which are much better than SegWit:
  • For blocksize governance, we now have market-based blocksize based on emergent consensus, provided by Bitcoin Unlimited.
  • For malleability and quadratic hashing time (plus a future-proof, tag-based language similar to JSON or XML supporting much cleaner upgrades long-term), we now have Flexible Transactions (FlexTrans).
This is why We Reject SegWit because "SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history".
My rapid evolution on SegWit - as I discovered its dangers (and as we got much better alternatives, like Bitcoin Unlimited + FlexTrans):
Initially, I was one of the most outspoken supporters of SegWit - raving about it in the following OP which I posted (on Monday, December 7, 2015) immediately after seeing a presentation about it on YouTube by Pieter Wuille at one of the early Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3vt1ov/pieter_wuilles_segregated_witness_and_fraud/
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits).
So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community.
However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
  • trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
  • trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
  • trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year.
So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community.
We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork.
But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork.
The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear:
Bitcoin users are not stupid.
Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork.
And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote.
And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately.
We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack.
If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit).
Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code.
Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago.
But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences.
Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k6tke/the_tragedy_of/
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
  • Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
  • SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
  • But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
  • Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
  • This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=segwit+anyone+can+spend&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5r9cu7/the_real_question_is_how_fast_do_bugs_get_fixed/
Why are more and more people (including me!) rejecting SegWit?
(1) SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible change ever proposed for Bitcoin:
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
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
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbug3/the_scaling_argument_was_ridiculous_at_first_and/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5a7husegwitasasoftfork_is_a_hack/
(2) Better solutions than SegWit are now available (Bitcoin Unlimited, FlexTrans):
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/574g5l/viabtc_why_i_support_bu_we_should_give_the/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u1r2d/bitcoins_specification_eg_excess_blocksize_eb/
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zjnk/the_blockstreamsegwitln_fork_will_be_worth_less/
(3) Very few miners actually support SegWit. In fact, over half of SegWit signaling comes from just two fiat-funded miners associated with Core / Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC:
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
(4) Hard forks are simpler and safer than soft forks. Hard forks preserve your "right to vote" - so Core / Blockstream is afraid of hard forks a/k/a "full node refendums" - because they know their code would be rejected:
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5f4zaa/anything_controversial_is_the_perfect_time_for_a/
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41c8n5/as_core_blockstream_collapses_and_classic_gains/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59hcvblockstream_is_just_another_shitty_startup_a/
(5) Core / Blockstream's latest propaganda "talking point" proclaims that "SegWit is a blocksize increase". But we don't want "a" random, arbitrary centrally planned blocksize increase (to a tiny 1.7MB) - we want _market-based blocksizes - now and into the future:_
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?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fjh6l/the_bitcoin_community_is_talking_why_isnt/
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/593voi/the_majority_of_the_community_sentiment_be_it/
(6) Core / Blockstream want to radically change Bitcoin to centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize, and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" semantics. The market wants to go to the moon - with Bitcoin's original security model, and Bitcoin's original market-based (miner-decided) blocksize.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57brcb/bitcoin_unlimited_is_the_real_bitcoin_in_line/
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!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdhzh/the_number_of_blocks_being_mined_by_bitcoin/
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v10zw/i_have_just_been_banned_for_from_rbitcoin_fo
Flipping the Script: It is Core who is proposing a change to Bitcoin, and BU/Classic that is maintaining the status quo.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v36jy/flipping_the_script_it_is_core_who_is_proposing_a/
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/
TL;DR:
You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream?
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Theymos starting censoring the majority because he believed they were wrong about big blocks. Now the main agenda is that the majority wants small blocks and the majority is always right.

A couple posts by theymos...
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/
About majoritarianism. Just because many people want something doesn't make it right.
...
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave.
3 months ago...
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6llyn9/if_you_want_segwit_but_you_dont_think_we_should/djuvsgu/
There is no voting in Bitcoin. You can set up a million BIP148 nodes and it won't make any difference. For that matter, any individual person doesn't have much economic force, so I'm not sure that it'd make much difference even if you got 50% or 75% or 90% of /Bitcoin users to personally hard-enforce BIP148. You need significant economic actors: Bitcoin-accepting businesses, exchanges, etc. Maybe it's possible to succeed in a UASF without much business support, but then you need massive end-user support, which requires default-on hard enforcement in common software like Core. You're never going to succeed with grassroots political tactics but ~no time, ~no business support, and ~no default-on support in common software.
So it's pretty clear that the overlord of /bitcoin thinks that the majority of bitcoin users have no power towards it's development and direction. This started as him banning big blockers because he thinks he is smarter than the majority. And recently he's saying that the "majority" he has created in his echo-chamber have no power, but the businesses and exchanges do. Well, the businesses, exchanges and miners have decided, just like he said. Except it's on segwit2x.
But what's going on in /bitcoin now? (I don't believe these posts claiming they have the majority of user's support. It's just interesting how their thought process contradicts their leader who BANNED the majority and doesn't believe in the majority.)
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/74mydg/the_smart_money_is_on_btc/
Today, the large majority of the bitcoin user base supports the core roadmap.
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/73x7ch/heres_the_uservsminer_bitcoin_compromise_uvmsf_do/dnttktt/
it is readily apparent the majority of users (i.e. node operators or those who care enough to make their voice heard online) do not support NYA/the 2x fork
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/73z8aj/btc_predictions_oct/dnu9bno/
-There's also Luke-jr sybil resistant poll which indicate that the majority of users do not want a hard-fork now.
There are tons of posts like this all over /bitcoin.
So the "majority" is right? Then why wasn't the real majority right in the first thread I posted before theymos banned everyone? I guess the majority is only right when theymos has manufactured it. So theymos = majority. Always.
The /bitcoin "majority"TM and a few troll companies are literally all they have left after shifting the goal posts after every loss. Let's finish this in November.
submitted by viners to btc [link] [comments]

Finding Bitcoin at an (Online) New Year's Eve Party - Luke Dash, Jr.  Bitcoin at 10 Why are you Interested in Bitcoin? Answered by Core dev Luke jr and Bitcoin.com CEO Roger Ver Luke Dashjr How Bitcoin Evolves LABitConf 2018 ByBit Exchange Tutorial: How to Long or Short Bitcoin ... Bitcoin Core Dev

#5 Luke-jr. One of the more colorful figures in the bitcoin ecosystem goes by the nickname Luke-jr. He is not afraid to share some controversial thoughts on the bitcoin ecosystem and what the ... Luke-Jr 2014-10-06 04:02:05 UTC All entries on the blacklist are known DDoS attacks against the Bitcoin network, not political. The vanilla code already attempts to ignore (and thereby mitigate) these kind of attacks[1]. The blacklist feature is just an admittedly ugly hack to improve the reliability of the detection based on known factors - it is unsuitable for the reference code because it ... Exchange Reviews; Wallet Reviews ; Menu × ACA News ... Exchange Reviews; Wallet Reviews; luke-jr Auto Added by WPeMatico. Home » luke-jr. Jan 1 2020. Veriblock Captured Close to 60% of BTC’s OP Return Transactions in 2019 – Bitcoin News. Anchor Data, BCH, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, btc, ... Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to luke-jr/bips development by creating an account on GitHub. Luke Dash Jr. is a Bitcoin Core (BTC) developer and he seems to constantly be in the middle of some kind of controversy. One of his most recent comments to get some attention is regarding the block size on the BTC chain, which he suggested reducing down to 300kb.

[index] [27807] [5800] [31340] [29722] [45180] [29761] [44086] [14866] [3067] [12731]

Finding Bitcoin at an (Online) New Year's Eve Party - Luke Dash, Jr. Bitcoin at 10

Small block proponent and Core Dev member Luke Jr is asked Why he is interested in Bitcoin. (He isn't sure) Bitcoin Cash proponent and CEO of Bitcoin.com Roger Ver gives his answer to the same ... How to Exchange Bitcoin to Ether using blockchain - Duration: 3:25. Mulla Eshcol 18,141 views. 3:25. How to buy ripple (XRP) - Duration: 5:57. ... DISCLAIMER: Trading Bitcoin is VERY risky, and 80% of traders don't make money. Make sure that you understand these risks if you are a beginner. I only recommend crypto trading to already ... Top Bitcoin Core Dev Greg Maxwell DevCore: Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more - Duration: 55:04. The Bitcoin Foundation 19,905 views (See Part 2 also.) Luke-jr is one of the main developers for Bitcoin right now. "By the way, the Sun really orbits the Earth, not vice-versa." -luke-jr http:...

#