Bitcoin Developer Taking Hits: Shedding Light on the Luke ...

AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")

TL;DR:
~ YouDoTheMath u/ydtm
Details:
(1) Who is AXA? Why and how would they want to suppress the Bitcoin price?
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
(2) What evidence do we have that Core and AXA-owned Blockstream are actually impacting (suppressing) the Bitcoin price?
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
This graph shows Bitcoin price and volume (ie, blocksize of transactions on the blockchain) rising hand-in-hand in 2011-2014. In 2015, Core/Blockstream tried to artificially freeze the blocksize - and artificially froze the price. Bitcoin Classic will allow volume - and price - to freely rise again.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44xrw4/this_graph_shows_bitcoin_price_and_volume_ie/
Also see a similar graph in u/Peter__R's recent article on Medium - where the graph clearly shows the same Bitcoin price suppression - ie price uncoupling from adoption and dipping below the previous tightly correlated trend - starting right at that fateful moment when Blockstream came on the scene and told Bitcoiners that we can't have nice things anymore like on-chain scaling and increasing adoption and price: late 2014.
Graph - Visualizing Metcalfe's Law: The relationship between Bitcoin's market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/574l2q/graph_visualizing_metcalfes_law_the_relationship/
Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dfb3bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/
(3) "But no - they'd never do that!"
Actually - yes, they would. And "they" already are. For years, governments and central bankers have been spending trillions in fiat on wars - and eg suppressing precious metals prices by flooding the market with "fake (paper) gold" and "fake (paper) silver" - to prevent the debt- & war-backed PetroDollar from collapsing.
The owners of Blockstream are spending $76 million to do a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin by manipulating the Core devs & the Chinese miners. This is cheap compared to the $ trillions spent on the wars on Iraq & Libya - who also defied the Fed / PetroDollar / BIS private central banking cartel.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5q6kjo/the_owners_of_blockstream_are_spending_76_million/
JPMorgan suppresses gold & silver prices to prop up the USDollar - via "naked short selling" of GLD & SLV ETFs. Now AXA (which owns $94 million of JPMorgan stock) may be trying to suppress Bitcoin price - via tiny blocks. But AXA will fail - because the market will always "maximize coinholder value"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vjne5/jpmorgan_suppresses_gold_silver_prices_to_prop_up/
Why did Blockstream CTO u/nullc Greg Maxwell risk being exposed as a fraud, by lying about basic math? He tried to convince people that Bitcoin does not obey Metcalfe's Law (claiming that Bitcoin price & volume are not correlated, when they obviously are). Why is this lie so precious to him?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57dsgz/why_did_blockstream_cto_unullc_greg_maxwell_risk/
If you had $75 million invested in Blockstream, and you saw that stubbornly freezing the blocksize at 1 MB for the next year was clogging up the network and could kill the currency before LN even had a chance to roll out, wouldn't you support an immediate increase to 2 MB to protect your investment?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/48xm28/if_you_had_75_million_invested_in_blockstream_and/
[Tinfoil] What do these seven countries have in common? (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran) In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3yits0/tinfoil_what_do_these_seven_countries_have_in/
(4) What can we do to fight back and let Bitcoin's price continue to rise again?
  • Reject the Central Blocksize Planners at Core/Blockstream - and the censors at r\bitcoin.
  • Install Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based blocksize in accordance with Satoshi's original vision.
  • Be patient - and persistent - and decentralized - and Bitcoin will inevitably win.
The moderators of r\bitcoin have now removed a post which was just quotes by Satoshi Nakamoto.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49l4uh/the_moderators_of_rbitcoin_have_now_removed_a/
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5omufj/notice_how_anyone_who_has_even_remotely_supported/
"I was initially in the small block camp. My worry was decentralization & node count going down as a result. But when Core refused to increase the limit to 4MB, which at the time no Core developer thought would have a negative effect, except Luke-Jr, I began to see ulterior motives." u/majorpaynei86
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5748kb/i_was_initially_in_the_small_block_camp_my_worry/
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/
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/
"Bitcoin Unlimited ... makes it more convenient for miners and nodes to adjust the blocksize cap settings through a GUI menu, so users don't have to mod the Core code themselves (like some do now). There would be no reliance on Core (or XT) to determine 'from on high' what the options are." - ZB
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3zki3h/bitcoin_unlimited_makes_it_more_convenient_fo
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 Nine Miners of China: "Core is a red herring. Miners have alternative code they can run today that will solve the problem. Choosing not to run it is their fault, and could leave them with warehouses full of expensive heating units and income paid in worthless coins." – tsontar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xhejm/the_nine_miners_of_china_core_is_a_red_herring/?st=iz7029hc&sh=c6063b52
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/
Fun facts about ViaBTC: Founded by expert in distributed, highly concurrent networking from "China's Google". Inspired by Viaweb (first online store, from LISP guru / YCombinator founder Paul Graham). Uses a customized Bitcoin client on high-speed network of clusters in US, Japan, Europe, Hong Kong.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57e0t8/fun_facts_about_viabtc_founded_by_expert_in/
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 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 think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

The owners of Blockstream are spending $75 million to do a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin by manipulating the Core devs & the Chinese miners. This is cheap compared to the $ trillions spent on the wars on Iraq & Libya - who also defied the Fed / PetroDollar / BIS private central banking cartel.

At this point, that's really the simplest "Occam's razor" explanation for Blockstream's "irrational" behavior.
Once you let go of your irrational belief that Blockstream's owners actually want to get a "return" on their $75 million investment, from "innovations" such as sidechains technology (Lightning Network - LN) - only then will you be able to see that Blockstream's apparently "irrational" behavior is actually perfectly rational.
They say their goal is to "get rich" from LN. And if you believe that, I have a Dogecoin I'd like to sell you.
What are the real goals of Blockstream's owners?
Blockstream's owners don't give a fuck about the Rube Goldberg vaporware which some focus group christened "the Lightning Network". That name is just there to placate the masses of noobs who congregate on /bitcoin.
The owners of Blockstream are laughing at Adam Back as he continues to labor in isolation, the stereotypical math PhD who is clueless about economics, toiling away creating a slow, overpriced, centralized "level 2" payment layer on top of Bitcoin - a complicated contraption which may never work. They have neutralized him - but meanwhile, he thinks he's a rock star now, as "CEO of Blockstream". Little does he know he is the worst "collaborator" of all.
Investors are risk-averse
If Blockstream's owners really wanted to get rich from LN, do you really think they would freeze the "max blocksize" at 1 MB for the next year, when this 1-year freeze obviously risks destroying Bitcoin itself (along with their investment)?
Investors are not stupid - and they are risk-averse. They know that if there's no Bitcoin, then there's no Lightning - so their $75 million investment would go out the window.
And all the "Core" devs have actually gone on the record stating (in their less-guarded moments, or before they signed their employment contracts with Blockstream) that 2 MB blocks would work fine - even 3-4 MB blocks. Empirical research by miners has shown that 3-4 MB blocks - or even bigger - would work fine right now.
So why aren't the Blockstream investors pressuring the Core devs to go to 2 MB now, to remove the risk of Bitcoin failing?
If Blockstream did the "rational" thing and agreed to 2 MB now, the price would shoot up, the community would heal, innovation would start happening again. Bitcoin would proper, and Blockstream's investors would have a good chance at making a "return" on their investment.
For some reason, Blockstream's investors are trying to stop all this from happening. So we have to look for a different explanation. If the owners of Blockstream don't want to get rich from the Lightning Network, then what do they really want?
The simplest explanation is that the real risk which Blockstream's investors are "averse" to is the possibility of trillions of dollars in legacy fiat suddenly plunging in relative value, if Bitcoin were to shoot to the moon. They're afraid they'll lose power if Bitcoin succeeds.
In order to provide some support for this radical but simple hypothesis, we have to dive into some pretty nasty and shadowy geopolitics.
What do the wars on Iraq and Syria, JPMorgan's naked short selling of silver, and the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" all have in common?
Whenever a currency tries to compete with the Fed / Petrollar / BIS [1] private central banking cartel, the legacy fiat power élite destroys that currency (if the currency has a central point of control - which Bitcoin does have: the Core devs, the Chinese miners, and Theymos).
[1] BIS = the Bank for International Settlements, often referred to as "the central bank of central banks"
Trillions of dollars were spent to take down the central banks of Iraq and Libya, because they defied the hegemony of the Fed / Petrodollar / BIS private central banking cartel.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ellen+brown+iraq+libya+bis
And while you're googling, you might want to look up whistleblower Andrew Maguire (who exposed how JPMorgan uses naked short selling to "dump" nonexistent silver in order to prevent the USDollar from collapsing).
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=andrew+maguire+jpmorgan
And you might also want to look up John Perkins, whose book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" is another major eye-opener about how "the Washington consensus" manages to rule the world by printing fiat backed by violence and justified by "experts" and propaganda.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=john+perkins+confessions+economic+hit+man
That's just how the world works - although you have to do a bit of research to discover those unpleasant facts.
So for the legacy fiat power élite, $75 million to take down Bitcoin (and maintain their power) is chump change in comparison.
You all knew that "they" were going to try to destroy Bitcoin, didn't you?
Even Jamie Dimon practically admitted as much.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jamie+dimon+bitcoin
Did you really think they would be clumsy enough to try to ban it outright?
Private central bankers run this planet, and they have never hesitated to use their lethal combination of guns, debt and psyops to maintain their power. They pay for the wars, they keep people enslaved to debt, and they dumb down the population so nobody knows what's really going on.
Print up a trillion dollars here, kill a million people there, brainwash everyone with censorship and propaganda. That's their modus operandi.
So we shouldn't be surprised if they they ruthlessly and covertly try to take down Bitcoin. They have the means and the motivation.
It was only a matter of time before they identified the three weakest centralized points in the Bitcoin system:
And so that's where they applied the pressure.
I'm sorry to be rude, but all three of those players listed above are idiot savants / sitting ducks up against the full-spectrum of covert dirty tricks deployed by the legacy fiat power élite - whether it's money, ego-stroking, or pretending to go along with their crazy cypherpunk beliefs that Bitcoin will only prosper as long as it remains small enough to run a node on a dial-up internet on a Raspberri Pi in Luke-Jr's basement.
So the simplest explanation is this: Blockstream is a "front company" which has been established for the purpose of performing a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin.
So Satoshi messed up. He messed up by baking in a 1 MB constant into the code at the last minute as a clumsy anti-spam kludge - which could unfortunately only be removed via a hard fork - and which the global legacy power élite have figured how to retain via social engineering directed at clueless Core devs and clueless Chinese miners (and clueless forum moderators).
So why is the price is still fairly stable?
Heck, I'm so paranoid, I wouldn't even put it past them to try to interfere with investors who might otherwise be trying to send a signal by "voting with their feet".
In other words, several observers have commented that the only way to liberate Bitcoin from the cartel of Chinese miners and Core/Blockstream devs is to crash the price.
And many other observers are puzzled that the price isn't crashing now that Bitcoin is being strangled in its cradle by Blockstream.
Well, this wouldn't be the first time that the Fed / PetroDollar / BIS private central banking cartel sent in the "plunge protection" team to artificially prop up their fragile, centralized, permissioned currency.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=plunge+protection+team
Who knows, they could easily have printed up a few million dollars in phoney fiat and given it to players like Jamie Dimon or Blythe Masters who probably have access to the HFT (high frequency trading) tools to keep the price exactly where they want it, for as long as they want it. Manipulating an unregulated $6 billion market would be child's play for them.
The point is, we have no idea who is buying bitcoins at this price right now. Or what their motives are.
I know that if I were part of the legacy fiat power élite, this is exactly what I'd be doing now: buy off the devs, pressure the miners, encourage the censors, and play with the price - so nobody knows what the hell is going on. Prevent the price from crashing for the next year (so the community won't have a "smoking gun" to reject the Core devs and the Chinese miners)... and prevent it from going to the moon also (so the dollar won't look like it's crashing). Not too hard to do, especially if you have unlimited fiat at your disposal.
2016 is the perfect time to perform a "controlled demolition" on Bitcoin.
All the forces in the global economy are now aligned for a massive economic storm of epic proportions. Without Blockstream's interference, Bitcoin's price would be shooting to the moon right now, because it's the only digital asset class free of counterparty risk, compared to all the other garbage floating around in the system:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=deutsche+bank+lehman
https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/45ogx7/daily_discussion_sunday_february_14_2016/d0015vf
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china+capital+flight
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=NIRP+Negative+Interest+Rate+Policy
Bitcoin is one of the only safe harbors in this oncoming economic storm. So it should be skyrocketing right now - if there were no artificial constraints on its growth.
So if Blockstream were not doing a controlled demolition of Bitcoin right now by freezing the blocksize to 1 MB for the next year, then the Bitcoin price could easily go to 4,000 USD - instead languishing around 400 USD.
In other words: the USDollar would be crashing 10-fold versus Bitcoin.
The only bulwark against Bitcoin rising 10x versus the USDollar is Blockstream's stranglehold on the Core devs and the Chinese miners.
Just like the only bulwark against precious metals rising 10x versus the USDollar right now is JPMorgan's naked short selling of phoney (paper) precious metals, mainly via the SLV ETF (exchange traded fund).
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jpmorgan+naked+short+selling+slv
(Most informed estimates say that there is 100x more "fake" or "paper" gold and silver in existence, versus "physical" gold and silver. So it's easy for JPMorgan to suppress the silver price: just naked-short-sell "paper" silver. They do this as a service to the Fed, to prop up the dollar. And your tax dollars pay for this fraud.)
The silence of the devs
Isn't it strange how not a single Blockstream dev dares to "break ranks" on the 2 MB taboo?
This unanimous code of silence among Blockstream devs speaks volumes.
Devs on open-source projects like this (particularly ones which were founded on principles of "permissionless" "decentralization") would never maintain this kind of uniform code of developer silence - especially when their precious open-source project is on the verge of failing.
Most devs are rebels - especially Bitcoin devs - ready to break ranks at the drop of a hat, and propose their brilliant ideas to save the day.
But right now - utter silence.
This bizarre code of silence which we are now seeing from the "Core" devs must be the result of some major behind-the-scenes arm-twisting by the owners of Blocsktream, who must have made it abundantly clear that any dev who attempts to provide a simple on-chain scaling solution will be severely punished - financially, legally and/or socially.
Blockstream has deliberately set Bitcoin on a suicide course right now - and all the devs there are silently complicit - and so are the Chinese miners who submissively bowed down to Blockstream's stalling "scaling" roadmap.
But I don't really blame the devs and the miners. I feel bad for them.
I'm not really "blaming" any Chinese miners for being used like this - nor am I really "blaming" devs such as Adam Back, Greg Maxwell, etc.
Nor do I really "blame" guys like Austin Hill.
And I even think guys like Theymos and Luke-Jr "mean well".
They're all just being played. They think they're doing the right thing. Their arguments are genuine and heart-felt. Wrong, but heart-felt. This is what makes them so dangerous - because they really sound sincere and convincing. This is why they are the perfect pawns for the owners of Blockstream to play like this.
Subtle coercion
We recently found out that they locked the Chinese miners in a room for 13 hours until 3 AM to force them to sign an "agreement" to never use any code from a competing Bitcoin implementation that would increase the blocksize.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46tv22/only_emperors_kings_and_dictators_demand_fealty/
Have you ever seen this kind of coercion in an open-source project - an open-source project founded on the principles of "permissionless" "decentralization" - where many of the founders were "cypherpunks"??
The miners and the devs - and Theymos - and guys like Austin Hill - all are passionate about Bitcoin, and they all believe they are doing "the right thing".
But they are being manipulated, without their knowledge, by the real power behind Blockstream.
Prisoners in a golden cage
Strange how we never get to hear what really goes on behind closed doors at Blockstream. We never get to see the PowerPoint decks, we never get to find out who said what. Blockstream's public messaging is tightly controlled.
If Bitcoin were to have a "core" dev team, it should have had something like the Mozilla Group, or the Tor Project - non-profits, who answer to the public, not to private investors. Instead we got Blockstream - a private company funded by some of the biggest players of the legacy fiat power élite. WTF?!?
If they wanted to develop sidechains and LN, then fine, they should be able to. But what they're really doing is radically changing Bitcoin itself - mainly by freezing growth at 1 MB blocks now, which is choking the system.
Depite all this, I still would not go so far as to say that the Core devs and the Chinese miners are really "traitors". At most, they are actually prisoners in a golden cage, who are not even really conscious of their own imprisonment. They're smart people - and in some ways, smart people are actually easier to fool, once you figure out what they believe in.
So this is what I really think the owners of Blockstream have done. They've figured out how to manipulate the Core devs and the Chinese miners - and they're happy that Theymos is playing along, censoring the main online forums - so they're able to move ahead with their plan to do a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin, and it only cost them $75 million dollars.
Centralization got us into this mess.
The only reason Bitcoin is vulnerable to this kind of "controlled demolition" being performed by the owners of Blockstream is because mining operations and dev teams are centralized - thus providing a single, vulnerable point where the legacy fiat power élite could easily deploy their full-spectrum attack.
We finally have a digital asset with no counterparty risk - and they want to take it away from us, so that we continue to depend on their debt-backed, violence-backed legacy fiat.
And they're able to do this because the Core devs and the Chinese miners and Theymos were such easy gullible centralized targets.
Decentralization will get us out.
If you are a miner or a dev, and if you want Bitcoin to survive, then you must go back to the principles of permissionless decentralization.
Go dark, release some code anonymously.
Release an internal Blockstream PowerPoint deck or some internal Blockstream emails to Wikileaks, exposing what the Blockstream investors are really up to.
Otherwise, Bitcoin is probably going to fail to realize its potential - and we'll have to wait a while for truly decentralized development (and mining, and forums) to possibly create a successor someday.
If you're a hodler, it would be great if such a phoenix rising from Bitcoin would be a "spinoff" - ie, a coin bootstrapped off of the existing ledger (to preserve existing wealth, while upgrading to a new protocol for appending new blocks).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0
But who knows.
submitted by UndergroundNews to btc [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Fact #300 Bitcoiners don't want known. The majority of the early adopters have exited the game.

Early adopters including many developers exited the game on the 80-1200 pump.
Luke-Jr was bragging on #bitcoin IRC how he exited at $1k. The amusing part is the laundering facility that was suppose to make early adopters rich aka Mt.Gox ended up blowing up so he lost any "gains" he had.
Bitcoiners do not realize at this point they are the latecomers to the party. 95% of the network was built AFTER early adopters cashed out. Buying bitcoin now you are giving cash to late to the game miners. Because of the retarded coin creation system Nakamoto created, these miners are now the worst enemy for any meaningful price rally. Readers can search /buttcoin for the numerous discussions about this flaw.
Mansions, supercars, jewellery, stocks, business's, lavish lifestyles have been financed by what occurred in the ecosystem over the last 3 years. Bitcoin did exactly what Nakamoto intended it too, it transferred millions of dollars from idiots to narcissistic computer nerds. Like everything the most hardcore believers tend to be the most broke. Take Andreas Antonopolous as an example.
2015 will be described by one word. Denial.
submitted by BitKon to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc posts from 2018-05-14 to 2018-05-19 12:59 PDT

Period: 5.31 days
Submissions Comments
Total 783 12622
Rate (per day) 147.47 2006.25
Unique Redditors 432 1955
Combined Score 23860 47871

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 1470 points, 7 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Purse.io is paying its employees in Bitcoin Cash. (441 points, 63 comments)
    2. Forbes Author Frances Coppola takes blockstream to task. (359 points, 35 comments)
    3. Purse CEO Andrew Lee confirms they are paying employees in BCH and native BCH integration update will be coming soon! (334 points, 43 comments)
    4. After today's BCH Upgrade, longer posts are now enabled on memo.cash! (245 points, 31 comments)
    5. Bitcoin cash fund is providing cashback and prizes for using Bitcoin (BCH) on purse.io next month. (76 points, 4 comments)
    6. As an existential threat to his criminal enterprise Wells Fargo, Bitcoin is rat poison for Warren Buffet. (15 points, 1 comment)
    7. Craig Wright in Rwanda- "I've got more money than your country". With advocates like these, no wonder BCH has a PR problem. (0 points, 6 comments)
  2. 1419 points, 6 submissions: tralxz
    1. Breaking News: Winklevoss Brothers Bitcoin Exchange Adds Bitcoin Cash support! (510 points, 115 comments)
    2. Jihan Wu was asked "Why are the miners still supporting Bitcoin Core? Is it just a short term profitability play?", he answered: "Yes, exactly." (273 points, 214 comments)
    3. Cobra:"That feeling when Blockstream, [...] release Liquid, a completely centralized sidechain run only by trusted nodes and designed for banks, financial institutions and exchanges." (240 points, 145 comments)
    4. Jihan Wu on Bloomberg predicting Bitcoin Cash at $100,000 USD in 5 years. (169 points, 65 comments)
    5. CNBC's Fast Money: Ran NeuNer says he would HODL Bitcoin Cash and sell Bitcoin Core. (168 points, 58 comments)
    6. Coindesk: "Florida Tax Collector to Accept Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash Payments" (59 points, 8 comments)
  3. 1221 points, 14 submissions: Kain_niaK
    1. I am getting flashbacks from when I tried to close my Bank of America account ... (348 points, 155 comments)
    2. moneybutton.com is a configurable client-side Bitcoin Cash (BCH) wallet in an iframe. When the user makes a payment, a webhook URL is called allowing your app to respond to the payment, such as displaying content behind a pay wall. (189 points, 37 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash can turn in to the biggest non violent protest against the establishment ever : "We simply stop using their money." Which is a great way of getting edgy teenagers to join us. There is an almost infinite supply of edgy teenagers in the world. (153 points, 42 comments)
    4. Purse.io at the Coingeek conference in HK just announced native BCH support!!! They are also launching a new software implementation called "bcash" (111 points, 6 comments)
    5. Who is all doing stuff like this on Reddit? Do we realize that we can make the Bitcoin Cash economy easily 10 times as big just by getting Reddit users on board? All they need is a good first user experience. Bitcoin needs to be experienced above everything else before you even talk about it. (109 points, 53 comments)
    6. /cryptocurrency in meltdown (88 points, 16 comments)
    7. Ryan X Charles from Yours.org had an amazing to the point presentation about the future of content creation on the internet. (85 points, 12 comments)
    8. So now that we have had tippr and chaintip for a while, what are you guys favourite and why? Or do you use both? (43 points, 25 comments)
    9. John Moriarty about why you can't separate Bitcoin from Blockchain. (37 points, 12 comments)
    10. The next wave of attack will be all the big internet giants supporting Bitcoin Core and LN. Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, I bet you that the more successful Bitcoin Cash becomes the more you will see big cooperation’s be forced to go with compromised Bitcoin. (25 points, 28 comments)
  4. 623 points, 5 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Frances Coppola on Twitter: “Congratulations, Blockstream, you have just reinvented the interbank lending market.” (414 points, 139 comments)
    2. We have a new alternative public mod logs (101 points, 35 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) sponsored Mei Yamaguchi's championship fight will be live on YouTube in an hour or so (2 fights left before hers - Livestream) (53 points, 22 comments)
    4. Uncensored: /t/Bitcoin (reddit without the censorship) (49 points, 43 comments)
    5. Information post about the recent suspension and re-activation of publicmodlogs (Update) (6 points, 0 comments)
  5. 582 points, 1 submission: VanquishAudio
    1. Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate.. (582 points, 113 comments)
  6. 493 points, 8 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Bitcoin Cash supporting Bitmain is leading a $110M investment in Circle. This is super bullish for BCH on Circle! (122 points, 24 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Core supporter who scammed his way into consensus without a ticket is busy calling Bitcoin.com and others scammers at the event. (98 points, 140 comments)
    3. I see lots of people coming here every day asking why we think Bitcoin is BCH. Here is why I think so: (79 points, 73 comments)
    4. The Bitcoin.com CTO made a fun little transaction puzzle with one of the new op-codes: (79 points, 11 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Cash is the fighter that everyone loves. (42 points, 86 comments)
    6. This graphic aged well over the last 3 months. (34 points, 64 comments)
    7. An example of the sophisticated arguments BTC supporters use against BCH supporters. (20 points, 12 comments)
    8. Tired of staying up all night looking at CoinMarket Cap? Give Bitcoin.com's Satoshi Pulse a try in night mode! (19 points, 11 comments)
  7. 475 points, 4 submissions: rdar1999
    1. Consensus 2018 sucked hard. Superficial talks, ridiculous ticket price, overcrowded venue. (235 points, 78 comments)
    2. See in this twitter thread Luke Jr actually arguing that PayPal is cheaper than BCH!! Is this guy in full delirium? Or just spouts misinformation on purpose? (173 points, 227 comments)
    3. Upgrade completed at height 530356! (59 points, 2 comments)
    4. On decentralization and archival nodes. (8 points, 5 comments)
  8. 465 points, 17 submissions: Windowly
    1. Yeah!! "We are pleased to announce that the new Bitcoin Cash address format has been implemented on QuadrigaCX. This will help our users to easily distinguish Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash addresses when funding/withdrawing their account. The BCH legacy addresses will still be supported." (164 points, 8 comments)
    2. "Friendly reminder: If you pay more than the bare minimum (1/sat per byte) to send a #BitcoinCash BCH transaction - you paid too much. 👍🏻"~James Howells (99 points, 12 comments)
    3. Bitpay Enables Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) for Tax Payments - Bitcoin News (59 points, 31 comments)
    4. "I like the symbology of 1,000,000 ␢ = 1 ₿ for #BitcoinCash What the 'little b' units are called I don't care that much, it will settle in whether it remains 'bits', or 'cash', or 'credits' ... " (55 points, 54 comments)
    5. ~Public Service Announcement~ Please be extra careful using Bitcoin Cash on the Trezor! They have not yet implemented CashAddr Security. Make sure to covert your address with cashaddr.bitcoincash.org and double check with a block explorer to make sure the address is the same. (39 points, 12 comments)
    6. "WRT telling others what to do or not to do (as opposed to asking them) on the point of making proposals or petitioning others - I hope we can take the time to re-read and take to heart @Falkvinge 's excellent dispute resolution advice in . ." [email protected] (33 points, 0 comments)
    7. Why I support Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And why I support cash-denominated wallets. 1$ is inconsequential pocket change to some. To others it is their livelihood. Thank you @BitcoinUnlimit & @Bitcoin_ABC for your work in this regard. (7 points, 16 comments)
    8. If anyone feels that they are forced or imposed to do anything, or threatened by any other person or group’s initiative, he doesn’t understand Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The beauty of Bitcoin Cash is that innovation & creativity is permissionless. Let’s celebrate new ideas together! (5 points, 1 comment)
    9. "Bits as a unit right now (100sat), no matter named bits or cash or whatever, is extremely useless at this time and in the near future : Its worth 1/11 of a CENT right now. Even it suddenly 10x, its still only 1 single cent."~Reina Nakamoto (2 points, 7 comments)
    10. Love this converter! Thank you @rogerkver ! At present 778.17 ␢ = 1 USD (1,000,000 ␢ = 1 ₿) Tools.bitcoin.com (2 points, 0 comments)
  9. 443 points, 33 submissions: kairostech99
    1. Purse.io Adds Native BCH Support and Launches 'Bcash' (116 points, 40 comments)
    2. Openbazaar Enables Decentralized Peer-To-Peer Trading of 44 Cryptocurrencies (93 points, 21 comments)
    3. Thailand Waives 7% VAT for Individual Cryptocurrency Investors (84 points, 1 comment)
    4. Switzerland Formally Considers State Backed Cryptocurrency (26 points, 8 comments)
    5. Research Paper Finds Transaction Patterns Can Degrade Zcash Privacy (24 points, 2 comments)
    6. Japan's GMO Gets Ready to Start Selling 7nm Bitcoin Mining Chips (21 points, 0 comments)
    7. MMA Fighter Mei Yamaguchi Comes Out Swinging for Bitcoin.com (18 points, 5 comments)
    8. Bitmain Hits Back at “Dirty Tricks” Accusations (15 points, 4 comments)
    9. Circle Raises $110Mn With Plans to Launch USD-Backed Coin (6 points, 2 comments)
    10. Coinbase Remains the Most Successful and Important Company in the Crypto Industry (5 points, 7 comments)
  10. 420 points, 4 submissions: crypto_advocate
    1. Jihan on Roger: "I learnt a lot about being open and passionate about what you believe in from him[Roger]" (161 points, 45 comments)
    2. Bitcoin.com's first officially sponsored MMA fighter head to toe in Bitcoin Cash gear on her walkout - "She didn't win but won the hearts of a lot of new fans" (150 points, 14 comments)
    3. "Bitcoin Community is thriving again" Roger Ver at CoinGeek (98 points, 8 comments)
    4. Today is a historic day. [Twitter] (11 points, 1 comment)
  11. 376 points, 2 submissions: singularity87
    1. Bitcoin Cash Fund has partnered with Purse.io to launch their suite of BCH services and tools. (212 points, 15 comments)
    2. Proposal - Makes 'bits' (1 millionth BCH) the standard denomination and 'BIT' the ticker. (164 points, 328 comments)
  12. 349 points, 1 submission: bearjewpacabra
    1. UPGRADE COMPLETE (349 points, 378 comments)
  13. 342 points, 1 submission: Devar0
    1. Congrats! Bitcoin Cash is now capable of a 32MB block size, and new OP_CODES are reactivated! (342 points, 113 comments)
  14. 330 points, 3 submissions: btcnewsupdates
    1. Amaury Sechet in HK: "We want to be as boring as possible... If we do our job well, you won't even notice us." (173 points, 29 comments)
    2. This is the way forward: Miners Consider Using Bitcoin Cash Block Reward to Fund Development (136 points, 86 comments)
    3. Merchant adoption: unexpected success. Perhaps the community should now put more of its focus on canvassing end users. (21 points, 7 comments)
  15. 318 points, 3 submissions: HostFat
    1. From One to Two: Bitcoin Cash – Purse: Save 20%+ on Amazon [2018] (173 points, 25 comments)
    2. Open Bazzar v2.2.0 - P2P market and P2P exchange now! (92 points, 15 comments)
    3. Tree Signature Variations using Commutative Hash Trees - Andrew Stone (53 points, 5 comments)
  16. 287 points, 1 submission: Libertymark
    1. Congrats BCH developers, we appreciate your work here and continued innovation (287 points, 79 comments)
  17. 260 points, 9 submissions: unitedstatian
    1. The guy had 350 bucks received via Lightning Network but he can't even close the channels to actually withdraw the bitcoins. (135 points, 188 comments)
    2. The first megabytes are far more crucial than the 100th. Not every MB was born equal and by giving up on adoption for years Core may have given up on adoption forever. (69 points, 20 comments)
    3. Looks like fork.lol is misleading users on purpose into thinking the fees on BTC and BCH are the same (28 points, 32 comments)
    4. Just because the nChain patents aren't on the base protocol level doesn't mean it's a good idea, BCH could end up with patents which are so part of its normal use it will effectively be part of it. (13 points, 33 comments)
    5. [Not a meme] This is what the TxHighway BTC road should look like when the memepool is large. The unconfirmed tx's should be represented with cars waiting in the toll lines. (9 points, 2 comments)
    6. Lighthouse should have a small button to easily integrate it with any web page where a task is required (4 points, 1 comment)
    7. Poland Becomes World's First to put Banking Records on the Blockchain (2 points, 3 comments)
    8. If I were Core and wanted to spam BCH, and since spamming with multiple tx's will be counterproductive, I'd pay unnecessarily high fees instead (0 points, 32 comments)
    9. What happens when "the man" starts blocking nodes in China now that they function as mass media? (0 points, 1 comment)
  18. 259 points, 2 submissions: outofsync42
    1. Sportsbook.com now accepting BCH!! (215 points, 42 comments)
    2. BITCOIN CASH VS BITCOIN 2018 | Roger Ver on CNBC Fast Money (44 points, 15 comments)
  19. 255 points, 2 submissions: Bitcoinmathers
    1. Bitcoin Cash Upgrade Milestone Complete: 32MB and New Features (255 points, 90 comments)
    2. Bitgo Launches Institutional Grade Custodial Services Suite (0 points, 0 comments)
  20. 223 points, 2 submissions: ForkiusMaximus
    1. Japanese tweeter makes a good point about BTC: "You don't call it an asset if it crumbles away every time you go to use it. You call it a consumable." (141 points, 21 comments)
    2. Jimmy Nguyen: Bitcoin Cash can function for higher level technical programming (82 points, 3 comments)
  21. 218 points, 3 submissions: mccormack555
    1. Trying to see both sides of the scaling debate (193 points, 438 comments)
    2. Has Craig Wright Committed Perjury? New Information in the Kleiman Case (25 points, 56 comments)
    3. Thoughts on this person as a representative of Bitcoin Cash? (0 points, 21 comments)
  22. 216 points, 4 submissions: jimbtc
    1. $50K worth of crypto to anyone who leaks the inner communications of the #CultOfCore (183 points, 29 comments)
    2. Liquidity Propaganda: "The formation of payment hubs happens naturally even in two-party payment channels like the Lightning Network.". LOL. Fuel the LN vs Liquidity fire :D (31 points, 7 comments)
    3. WBD 017 - Interview with Samson Mow (2 points, 19 comments)
    4. If you wanted further proof that Andreas Antonopolous is a BCore Coreonic Cuck then here's a new speech from May 6th (0 points, 8 comments)
  23. 212 points, 1 submission: porlybe
    1. 32 Lanes on TXHighway (212 points, 96 comments)
  24. 211 points, 3 submissions: Akari_bit
    1. "AKARI-PAY Advanced" Released, for Bitcoin Cash! (73 points, 6 comments)
    2. 129% funded! We flew by our first BCH fundraising goal, demonstrating AKARI-PAY! HUGE SUCCESS! (70 points, 7 comments)
    3. Devs.Cash updated with new Dev projects, tools, and bounties for Bitcoin Cash! (68 points, 7 comments)
  25. 210 points, 1 submission: CollinEnstad
    1. Purse.io Introduces 'bcash', an Implementation of the BCH protocol, just like ABC, BU, or Classic (210 points, 125 comments)
  26. 206 points, 20 submissions: marcelchuo3
    1. Bitcoin Cash Community Sees OP_Code Innovation After Upgrade (70 points, 3 comments)
    2. Coingeek Conference 2018: Bitcoin Cash Innovation Shines in Hong Kong (65 points, 4 comments)
    3. Bitfinex Starts Sharing Customer Tax Data with Authorities (16 points, 3 comments)
    4. Colorado Proposal Aims to Allow Cryptocurrency Donations for Campaigns (12 points, 2 comments)
    5. Thailand Commences Cryptocurrency Regulations Today (8 points, 1 comment)
    6. Bitcoin Mining Manufacturer Canaan Files for Hong Kong Stock Exchange IPO (7 points, 0 comments)
    7. Bitcoin in Brief Thursday: OECD Explores Cryptocurrencies, Central Asian Powerhouse Calls for UN Crypto Rules (5 points, 0 comments)
    8. Moldova with New Crypto Exchange and a Token (5 points, 0 comments)
    9. Korean Regulators Widen Investigation of Cryptocurrency Exchanges (4 points, 0 comments)
    10. Arrest Warrants Issued to Employees of South Korean Crypto Exchange (3 points, 0 comments)
  27. 198 points, 1 submission: anberlinz
    1. I used to think BCH was the bad guy, now I'm beginning to change the way I see it... Convince me that BCH is the real Bitcoin (198 points, 294 comments)
  28. 196 points, 1 submission: Chris_Pacia
    1. First tree signature on Bitcoin Cash using new opcodes (196 points, 61 comments)
  29. 191 points, 3 submissions: cryptorebel
    1. Coinbase blog from 2015: "bits is the new default". The reason "bits" stopped being used was because of high fees on segwitcoin. Lets bring back "bits" on the real Bitcoin-BCH! (106 points, 66 comments)
    2. Here is the Bitcoin-BCH countdown clock to the hard fork upgrade with new 32MB block limit capacity, and re-enabled op-codes. Looks like its about 17 hours away. (78 points, 2 comments)
    3. This is Core's idea of open development, you are "super welcome" to work on anything that the gatekeepers say is ok. People tout Core as having so many devs but it doesn't matter much when you have to go through the gatekeepers. (7 points, 14 comments)
  30. 186 points, 2 submissions: coinfeller
    1. Bitcoin Cash France is offering 32 000 bits of BCH for Tipping Tuesday to celebrate the upgrade from 8MB to 32MB (178 points, 101 comments)
    2. How the Bitcoin Cash upgrade from 8MB to 32MB seems like :) (8 points, 10 comments)
  31. 185 points, 3 submissions: money78
    1. Congratulations Bitcoin Cash for the 32MB, WTG! (93 points, 5 comments)
    2. Roger Ver on CNBC's Fast Money again and he says bitcoin cash will double by the end of the year! (68 points, 30 comments)
    3. The Bitcoin Cash upgrade: over 8 million transactions per day, data monitoring, and other possibilities (24 points, 3 comments)
  32. 182 points, 26 submissions: haumeris28
    1. MMA Fighter Mei Yamaguchi Sponsored By Bitcoin Cash Proponent Roger Ver (32 points, 3 comments)
    2. Swiss Government is Studying the Risks and Benefits of State-Backed Cryptocurrency (30 points, 3 comments)
    3. Circle and Bitmain partner for US Dollar backed Token (25 points, 18 comments)
    4. Apple Co-Founder - Ethereum Has the Potential to be the Next Apple (16 points, 13 comments)
    5. Florida County To Begin Accepting Tax Payments in Crypto (14 points, 0 comments)
    6. ‘Blockchain Will Drive the Next Industrial Revolution’, According to a Major Wall Street Firm (11 points, 0 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash Undergoes a Hard Fork, Increases Block Size (10 points, 3 comments)
    8. Newly Appointed Goldman Sachs Vice President Leaves for Cryptocurrency (7 points, 5 comments)
    9. OKEx CEO Quits as Exchange Becomes World’s Largest Surpassing Binance (7 points, 2 comments)
    10. Texas Regulators Shut Down Crypto Scam, Falsely Using Jennifer Aniston and Prince Charles for Promotion (6 points, 0 comments)
  33. 174 points, 31 submissions: MarkoVidrih
    1. US Regulators Agree That They Will Not Will Not Suppress Cryptocurrencies (96 points, 10 comments)
    2. Why Stable Coins Are the New Central Bank Money (28 points, 9 comments)
    3. First Facebook, Then Google, Twitter and LinkedIn, Now Microsoft’s Bing Will Ban All Cryptocurrency Ads (10 points, 2 comments)
    4. Circle Raises $110 Mln and Plans to Use Circle USD Coin (USDC) instead of Tether (USDT) (9 points, 1 comment)
    5. 9 Million New Users Are About to Enter in Crypto Market (4 points, 6 comments)
    6. Japan’s Largest Commercial Bank Will Try its Own Cryptocurrency in 2019 (4 points, 0 comments)
    7. The Viability of the ERC-948 Protocol Proposal (4 points, 0 comments)
    8. A letter from Legendary VC Fred Wilson to Buffet: The Value of Bitcoin Lies in the Agreement Itself (3 points, 1 comment)
    9. This is Just The Beginning of Crypto! (3 points, 0 comments)
    10. What? U.S. SEC Just Launches ICO Called HoweyCoin (3 points, 2 comments)
  34. 170 points, 2 submissions: plaguewiind
    1. Twitter restricting accounts that mention Blockstream (104 points, 49 comments)
    2. This is actually fantastic! Jimmy Nguyen on ‘The Future of Bitcoin (Cash)’ at The University of Exeter (66 points, 31 comments)
  35. 168 points, 1 submission: MartinGandhiKennedy
    1. [COMPELLING EVIDENCE] Proof that Luke Jr does not lie (168 points, 41 comments)
  36. 167 points, 1 submission: higher-plane
    1. BCH showerthought: The first one or two killer apps for Bitcoin Cash that drive mass adoption will be the thing that decides the standards/denominations based on what people are using and catches on. Not a small forum poll or incessantly loud Twitter spam. (167 points, 24 comments)
  37. 160 points, 1 submission: SharkLaserrrrr
    1. [PREVIEW] Looks like Lighthouse powered by Bitcoin Cash is coming together nicely thanks to the hard work of an anonymous developer. I wonder how Mike Hearn feels about his project being resurrected. (160 points, 24 comments)
  38. 160 points, 1 submission: playfulexistence
    1. Lightning Network user has trouble with step 18 (160 points, 165 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. bambarasta (898 points, 154 comments)
  2. Kain_niaK (706 points, 177 comments)
  3. Ant-n (691 points, 145 comments)
  4. H0dl (610 points, 116 comments)
  5. Adrian-X (538 points, 93 comments)
  6. KoKansei (536 points, 35 comments)
  7. LovelyDay (456 points, 78 comments)
  8. 324JL (444 points, 109 comments)
  9. LexGrom (428 points, 132 comments)
  10. Erumara (427 points, 44 comments)
  11. lubokkanev (404 points, 119 comments)
  12. LuxuriousThrowAway (397 points, 66 comments)
  13. rdar1999 (387 points, 82 comments)
  14. zcc0nonA (379 points, 100 comments)
  15. MemoryDealers (369 points, 18 comments)
  16. RollieMe (366 points, 29 comments)
  17. Churn (352 points, 32 comments)
  18. jimbtc (349 points, 72 comments)
  19. btcnewsupdates (338 points, 61 comments)
  20. blockthestream (338 points, 25 comments)
  21. SharkLaserrrrr (335 points, 33 comments)
  22. kondratiex (311 points, 80 comments)
  23. trolldetectr (306 points, 58 comments)
  24. ForkiusMaximus (300 points, 47 comments)
  25. jonald_fyookball (300 points, 35 comments)
  26. mccormack555 (294 points, 78 comments)
  27. playfulexistence (292 points, 40 comments)
  28. scotty321 (287 points, 46 comments)
  29. BitcoinXio (269 points, 23 comments)
  30. TiagoTiagoT (263 points, 96 comments)
  31. Bitcoinopoly (260 points, 39 comments)
  32. homopit (249 points, 48 comments)
  33. DoomedKid (249 points, 41 comments)
  34. cryptorebel (246 points, 54 comments)
  35. Deadbeat1000 (243 points, 36 comments)
  36. mrtest001 (239 points, 78 comments)
  37. BeijingBitcoins (235 points, 16 comments)
  38. tippr (227 points, 122 comments)
  39. chainxor (226 points, 24 comments)
  40. emergent_reasons (222 points, 56 comments)
  41. morli (221 points, 1 comment)
  42. patrick99e99 (220 points, 8 comments)
  43. crasheger (214 points, 39 comments)
  44. ---Ed--- (213 points, 81 comments)
  45. radmege (212 points, 35 comments)
  46. anberlinz (212 points, 33 comments)
  47. unstoppable-cash (211 points, 46 comments)
  48. taipalag (210 points, 35 comments)
  49. rowdy_beaver (210 points, 25 comments)
  50. RareJahans (206 points, 45 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate.. by VanquishAudio (582 points, 113 comments)
  2. Breaking News: Winklevoss Brothers Bitcoin Exchange Adds Bitcoin Cash support! by tralxz (510 points, 115 comments)
  3. Purse.io is paying its employees in Bitcoin Cash. by hunk_quark (441 points, 63 comments)
  4. Frances Coppola on Twitter: “Congratulations, Blockstream, you have just reinvented the interbank lending market.” by BitcoinXio (414 points, 139 comments)
  5. Forbes Author Frances Coppola takes blockstream to task. by hunk_quark (359 points, 35 comments)
  6. UPGRADE COMPLETE by bearjewpacabra (349 points, 378 comments)
  7. I am getting flashbacks from when I tried to close my Bank of America account ... by Kain_niaK (348 points, 155 comments)
  8. Congrats! Bitcoin Cash is now capable of a 32MB block size, and new OP_CODES are reactivated! by Devar0 (342 points, 113 comments)
  9. Purse CEO Andrew Lee confirms they are paying employees in BCH and native BCH integration update will be coming soon! by hunk_quark (334 points, 43 comments)
  10. Congrats BCH developers, we appreciate your work here and continued innovation by Libertymark (287 points, 79 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 221 points: morli's comment in Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate..
  2. 181 points: patrick99e99's comment in I used to think BCH was the bad guy, now I'm beginning to change the way I see it... Convince me that BCH is the real Bitcoin
  3. 173 points: RollieMe's comment in Trying to see both sides of the scaling debate
  4. 151 points: blockthestream's comment in Bitcoin Core supporter who scammed his way into consensus without a ticket is busy calling Bitcoin.com and others scammers at the event.
  5. 136 points: seleneum's comment in I am getting flashbacks from when I tried to close my Bank of America account ...
  6. 132 points: Falkvinge's comment in Talking to himself makes it so obvious that they're the same. lol
  7. 127 points: MemoryDealers's comment in Bitcoin Core supporter who scammed his way into consensus without a ticket is busy calling Bitcoin.com and others scammers at the event.
  8. 119 points: BitcoinXio's comment in Frances Coppola on Twitter: “Congratulations, Blockstream, you have just reinvented the interbank lending market.”
  9. 116 points: Erumara's comment in I used to think BCH was the bad guy, now I'm beginning to change the way I see it... Convince me that BCH is the real Bitcoin
  10. 115 points: KoKansei's comment in Purse.io Introduces 'bcash', an Implementation of the BCH protocol, just like ABC, BU, or Classic
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

So... The insurer whose "solvency" is most dependent on maintaining the fiction that the riskiest assets in Exter's Inverted Pyramid (derivatives) are actually worth something - is now paying the devs who write the code for the solidest asset in that pyramid (Bitcoin). What could possibly go wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Exter
Exter's Pyramid
Exter is known for creating Exter's Pyramid (also known as Exter's Golden Pyramid and Exter's Inverted Pyramid) for visualizing the organization of asset classes in terms of risk and size.
In Exter's scheme, gold [and now Bitcoin?] forms the small base of most reliable value, and asset classes on progressively higher levels are more risky.
The larger size of asset classes at higher levels is representative of the higher total worldwide notional value of those assets.
While Exter's original pyramid placed Third World debt at the top, today derivatives hold this dubious honor.
I like to think that the graph in the link below provides a nice, updated version of "Exter's Pyramid", although the layout isn't exactly triangular (but the sizes of each asset class are actually more accurate):
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12
Note that Bitcoin is the safest asset in the system - and derivatives are the riskiest.
And there is very, very little Bitcoin - versus a shitload of derivatives.
But if you hold Bitcoin (ie, you hold your private keys), then you have absolutely no counterparty risk. Versus if hold a derivative, it could be totally worthless - depending on whether the counterparty behind it is "solvent" or not.
And I would think that the battle between "people who hold Bitcoin" versus "people who hold derivatives" will shape up to be a million times more massive than the battle between savers and borrowers that we've already seen in the world.
In other words, an insurance company like AXA, which is more dependent on derivatives than any other insurer, is probably freaked out that they'd lose over a trillion dollars if Bitcoin were to succeed.
So... Can people start to see why I'm so freaked out about AXA funding Bitcoin development via their "investment" in Blockstream?
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
http://www.actuaries.org.hk/upload/File/ET210513.pdf (see where AXA is on the graph on page 5)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=axa+blockstream&ia=web
It's really poignant to see some clueless people wondering what AXA's "business model" might be for investing in Bitcoin.
Those clueless people need to wake the fuck up and face the reality of how bankers continue to print trillions of dollars to enslave the world.
AXA has absolutely zero interest in becoming some kind of two-bit Red Hat earning chump change in "support fees" or even "transaction fees" from being the maintainers / developers of some kind of open-source cryptocurrency sidechain code.
I can pretty much guarantee you: that is not their "busines model" for wanting to control Bitcoin development via investing in Blockstream.
As of 2007, AXA already had 1.123 trillion Euros in AUM (Assets under Management).
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/AXA_%28AXA%29/Assets_Management
That's over a million million Euros.
And as of 2014, one half of AXA (just their "AXA IM" part) had AUD 891 billion of Assets under Management.
http://www.professionalplanner.com.au/cut-and-paste/2015/03/06/axa-im-reaches-record-assets-under-management-34877/
So, for a giant insurer like AXA, "investing" $55 million in Blockstream is like dropping a fraction of a penny on the ground.
And any paltry few million dollars - or even billions of dollars - which AXA might make or lose from Blockstream / Lightning or whatever, would still be pretty insignificant bordering on immaterial when compared with the half a trillion or so dollars of derivatives which are on AXA's balance sheet - and which they must desperately try to continue to prop up, by continuing to keep people believing in the whole charade of the worldwide derivatives casino.
That's what is at stake here. The very definition of the worldwide accounting ledger itself - not a few entries in it. And as we know, Bitcoin provides an entirely new - and transparent, and unforgeable - ledger.
That's why companies like AXA want to control Bitcoin development. Not to make millions or even billions of dollars on fees. But to to continue to prop up the so-called legitimacy of their legacy accounting ledger containing hundreds of trillions of dollars. (Remember, the derivatives market is a ledger with entries currently totally $1.2 quadrillion dollars - ie, 1200 trillion dollars - and that ledger itself is what Bitcoin's very existence is threatening to "uber".)
AXA does not give a fuck what happens to the $55 million that got invested in Blockstream in that second funding round they participated in back in February 2016. The only purpose of that money is to sprinkle a few hundred thou around per dev per year to control useful idiots like Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back and outright lunatics like Luke-Jr - to let those economically ignorant coders keep on toiling away on their idealistic pie-in-the-sky mathematical cypherpunk daydreams, while the Bitcoin network goes into paralysis due to artificially small blocksize due to doctrainaire dolts like the current crop of "Core" devs.
AXA does not give a fuck if Blockstream or SegWit or Lightning succeeds.
The only reason AXA is interested in Bitcoin is because Bitcoin is real money, and AXA's balance sheet uses a legacy ledger based on the fiction of fantasy fiat money - and Bitcoin threatens to destroy all that.
AXA knows that it must destroy Bitcoin - or else Bitcoin will destroy AXA.
And before some brainwashed amateurish sophomoric loser wanna-be astroturfing troll from r\bitcoin wanders over here again and tries to spout some meaningless nonsense disruptive bullshit to sidetrack this serious topic (responses in the previous thread linked above included gibberish like "get a job!" or "MtGox!" or "but scammers!") - I would appreciate it if someone around here could divert about a half hour of their precious multitasking time and brainpower towards addressing the 800-pound gorilla of a question in the room, namely:
Do you think it's a good idea for the insurance company with the biggest exposure to the "legacy ledger" of derivatives in both $ and % terms (AXA - with $464 billion in notional derivatives exposure, over 50% of their balance sheet in this 2013 report - see graph on page 5) to be paying the devs who are in charge of "upgrading" our Bitcoin code - or do you think there might be the tiiiniest chance of some kind of conflict of interest there???
This could be the biggest issue in Bitcoin right now.
But it doesn't seem to get addressed head-on very much.
You don't hear the name "AXA" or the word "derivatives" used very much - although these might be the most important aspects of the issue here.
This isn't about earning or losing a million dollars here or a billion dollars there.
This is about redefining the very heart and soul of the world's ledger - which Bitcoin has a chance to do.
This is about that tiny speck called "Bitcoin" at the top of the chart in the link below:
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12
organically growing and blossoming and eventually destroying that grotesque metastazising mass called "derivatives" at the bottom of that chart.
That is why AXA is interested in Bitcoin.
It's about the ledger itself - not the payment rails - not even the tokens - and certainly not the fees.
Trust me, no company with 1 trillion dollars of Assets under Management is going to pay any attention to some miniscule little runt like Bitcoin with a mere $7 billion in market cap - unless they think that miniscule little runt actually might contain the code which might possibly replace their whole precarious phoney fiat fantasy accounting ledger which pays their billion dollar bonuses and buys their mansions and yachts.
That is why AXA is "investing" in Bitcoin. To control it - not to earn some pathetic tiny fees from it.
And it's time we started addressing this issue seriously.
The main question is:
Do you want a massive, derivatives-dependent, legacy fiat insurance company like AXA controlling Bitcoin development??
Upvotes on these kinds of posts are certainly nice (and drive-by troll-snark is of course tedious and annoying).
But what I would really like to know is whether there is anyone on these forums who wants to spend some time seriously discussing things like:
  • the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives casino,
  • that other notorious insurance group (AIG) which engaged in massive and fraudulent derivatives shenanigans that almost took down the world's economy in 2008,
  • the massive and glaring conflict of interest in letting a company whose very façade of solvency depends on maintaining the fantasy legacy ledger which Bitcoin threatens to replace
  • etc etc etc
Do we want a corrupt derivatives monster like AXA (which is probably only steps away from becoming the next AIG) to be in charge of paying Bitcoin devs?
I don't have all the answers. I'm just some shmuck who spent a few years writing code for some major financial institutions, and I heard and saw a few things, and I watched how those scumbags almost brought down the world's economy in 2008, and I am fully convinced that they do not want something like Bitcoin to "uber" their legacy ledger.
So I am simply raising the question, and I really would like to know if anyone else has anything substantive to say about this:
Should the insurance company with the biggest exposure to derivatives (the riskiest asset in the world), which is totally dependent on maintaining the charade of the world's legacy fantasy fiat accounting ledger, be in charge of paying the devs writing the code for the solidest asset in the world (Bitcoin), which threatens to "uber" that very ledger?
Could there be a conflict of interest in this kind of situation?
Am I the only person around here who finds this absolutely outrageous?
Or does everyone just think it's fine and dandy - and maybe we could even just put someone like Blythe Masters or Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein in charge of paying Bitcoin devs?
Henri de Castries might not be a household villain name like some of those above. He's probably a more behind-the-scenes guy. But he is the chairman of the Bilderberg group, and he is the CEO of AXA, and he is going to move to HSBC this fall - and now he is paying Greg Maxwell's and Adam Back's and Luke Jr's salary.
And then we sit here and keep wondering why "our" devs keep ignoring us when we've been begging them for over a year to pretty-please give us bigger blocks so the Bitcoin network won't die.
Well, maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye here.
Maybe it's time for us to start to recognize the magnitude of who we might actually be up against here, and how they might have used social engineering to infiltrate and neutralize the Bitcoin development process, and how desperate they might be to maintain the so-called legitimacy of their make-believe legacy accounting ledger which Bitcoin is poised to replace.
Maybe it's time to stop bringing a pocket-knife to fight a SWAT team.
Like I say, I don't know what the answer will turn out to be. (Maybe a spin-off, but who really knows at this point.)
But I do think it's time for all of us to sober up and start asking some serious questions about this bullshit we've been getting from Blockstream.
We need to be realistic about who and what we're up against - and how many trillions of dollars they know are at stake - and how dirty and sneaky they're willing to fight.
And we need to liberate Bitcoin development from the people who stand to lose the most from Bitcoin - and put it back in the hands of people who stand to win the most from Bitcoin.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash BCH is just a SCAM now same as BTC, HIJACKED by Anti-Bitcoiners & turned into Altcoin ПРОДАЛ БИТКОИН ЗА 8000$ - ЧТО ПРОИСХОДИТ С КРИПТОВАЛЮТОЙ Свежий прогноз топ криптовалют Junior bonds Markets Selling Off PARTY TIME at The Bitcoin Bowl! 2014

Luke-Jr is Not Pushing an Agenda on Bitcoin. The hyped position that goes something like this: Luke-Jr is a lunatic who wants everyone to share his beliefs; doesn’t approve of gambling and has a singular view of how things should be. In fact, after he handed off control of the Eligius mining pool to other parties, he ran for a seat on the Bitcoin Foundation. His platform directly ... gpg --import-options show-only --import --with-fingerprint luke-jr.asc. This will print a lot of information about the key file, but the relevant information is at the very top: pub rsa8192 2012 ... Look into bitcoin charts Fee calculator Johoe’s Bitcoin Mempool Statistics Liquid issued assets Liquid Horse Luke Jr’s Bitcoin Node Script sha256.network statoshi.info BitVol Digitalik Bitcoin stock to flow model live chart Bitcoin Rain Clark Moody Bitcoin Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index aggr.trade sk3w bitcoin futures sk3w ... Bitcoin.org was originally registered and owned by Bitcoin's first two developers, Satoshi Nakamoto and Martti Malmi. When Nakamoto left the project, he gave ownership of the domain to additional people, separate from the Bitcoin developers, to spread responsibility and prevent any one person or group from easily gaining control over the Bitcoin project. 2011-2012. Bitcoin Core. From 2011 to ... u/luke-jr. Luke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert. 4 years ago. Archived. Analysis & graphs of block sizes. I made some useful graphs to help those taking a side in the block size debate make a more informed decision. First, I only looked at blocks found after approximately 10 minutes, to avoid the time variance from influencing the result. Then, I split the blocks into three categories (which you can ...

[index] [1173] [1340] [19031] [33205] [28561] [24296] [12718] [25274] [24858] [35407]

Bitcoin Cash BCH is just a SCAM now same as BTC, HIJACKED by Anti-Bitcoiners & turned into Altcoin

Talking Markets Selling Off on FOX Business featuring Ken Mahoney - Investor, author and CEO of Mahoney Asset Management, providing key insights to stock market investment strategies. Video ... 🔴 Bitcoin & Stocks LIVE : White House Makes a Deal! 🔴 Ep. 915 Crypto Technical Analysis Mitch Ray 640 watching Live now Work From Home Stuffing Envelopes - 100% Free to Start! What's up Party People! This video is a glimpse at the excitement, fervor, and epicness that was this year's Bitcoin Bowl. It's a departure from this channel's usual format, but hopefully you all ... You should check out this guy's Twitter and see how once you look outside the BTC echo chamber that r/bitcoin is and most of the crypto "News Outlets" as well as Social Media (and same is with BCH ... Luke Miani Recommended ... Let's Talk Money! with Joseph Hogue, CFA Recommended for you. 16:07. You are being LIED TO about BITCOIN 🚨DON'T BE FOOLED! Cuban Gates O'Leary conspire against crypto ...

#