Conversations from Riga: Matt Corallo + Hasufly by Tales ...

Matt Corallo shows his true "cypherpunk" colors. Pleads the SEC to regulate SegWit1MB as "Bitcoin" against 93% miner consensus

Matt Corallo shows his true submitted by BitcoinArtist to btc [link] [comments]

A bug that allows miners willing to burn 12.5 BTC to crash the Bitcoin Core nodes introduced by Blockstream cofounder Matt Corallo shows complete incompetence

A bug that allows miners willing to burn 12.5 BTC to crash the Bitcoin Core nodes introduced by Blockstream cofounder Matt Corallo shows complete incompetence submitted by Gobitcoin to Blockstream_Exposed [link] [comments]

Matt Corallo shows his true "cypherpunk" colors. Pleads the SEC to regulate SegWit1MB as "Bitcoin" against 93% miner consensus /r/btc

Matt Corallo shows his true submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

AMA Bitcoin Mining / Stratum V2 — We are Braiins, the company behind Slush Pool and Stratum V2. We’re joined by Matt Corallo and Peter Todd. Ask us anything!

Hi Bitcoin! We are Jan Capek (u/janbraiins) and Pavel Moravec (u/p-m-o), co-founders of Braiins (the company behind Slush Pool & Braiins OS). We recently published the specification for Stratum V2 — a new mining protocol that improves the decentralization, security, and efficiency of Bitcoin mining.
We know the biggest issues miners and mining pools face based on our years of experience operating Slush Pool, and this protocol addresses those problems. You can find the documentation at stratumprotocol.org.
Matt Corallo (u/TheBlueMatt) will also participate in the AMA. He joined us in Prague last September to hash out the details of the spec and his idea of allowing miners to select their own work in BetterHash is also implemented in Stratum V2. Peter Todd (u/petertodd) also joined the V2 team with his security expertise and will participate in this AMA.
Ask us anything! We’ll try to begin answering questions on Thursday around 4pm CET (10am EST).
P.S. The V2 technical specification is currently available to the public for comments and general feedback.
submitted by SlushPool to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell projecting again... The YOLO developer himself

In one of today's /btc threads about Bitcoin Cash accepting Schnorr signatures before Bitcoin does Greg Maxwell(nullc) does damage control with this comment:
We're just uncomfortable moving forward with novel cryptography without it having been reviewed. BCash is "yolo" cyptocurrency which recently confiscated a large number of coins by accident in its last coercive split inducing rule change.
The irony of course is that Greg Maxwell ACK'ed one of the biggest bugs in Bitcoin's history on a whim of Matt Corallo. He'd literally YOLO'd a bug into Bitcoin that allowed miners to create Bitcoin's out of thin air to save 600microseconds of validation time. With not so much as a basic unit test.
Here's Greg Mawell's ACK to Matt Corallo's commit:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9049
And here's the full writeup oh how Greg Maxwell YOLO'd one of the most disastrous bugs into Bitcoin: https://medium.com/@awemany/600-microseconds-b70f87b0b2a6
Greg Maxwell you should take credit for creating one of Bitcoin's biggest security vulnerabilites known to date (CVE-2018-17144): https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-17144
BONUS: Greg lies about being contacted by another BCH developer, Mark Blundeberg, and gets called out by that developer himself:
I haven't contacted you privately about patents, nor have I ever asked to license anything from Blockstream. You must be thinking of someone else.
submitted by 500239 to btc [link] [comments]

Will a high tx fee actually *increase* the expected confirmation time?

Suppose you are bitcoin miner (of any fork), with command of less than (say) 5% of the total hashpower, and you receive a transaction from a user that pays $50 of fee. Is it in your interest to forward that tx to other miners?
Until Jan/2017 or so, the answer should have been "no". If other miners got (or will soon get) that tx by some other path, sending it again would be a pointless waste of bandwidth. So suppose that no one else will get it by other means. If you hold onto that tx and keep adding it to your candidate blocks, when you finally solve a block you will collect those $50. On the other hand, if you forward it to other miners, there is at least a 95% chance that some other miner will collect those $50.
Since Jan/2017 the question became more complicated, because Matt Corallo's improved block propagation protocol (FIBRE) will transmit a block very fast if the receiving miner has already seen all transactions contained in it. Any transactions that he has not yet seen must be transmitted at that time; and the receiver cannot use or forward the block until all those "unseen" transactions have arrived.
So, if you hold that transaction with $50 fee, and the other miners will not get it by some other means, when you finally solve a block you will have to send that transaction with it. Your block will take a bit longer to propagate to other miners. Then there is an increased chance that another miner will solve his block and forward it to everybody, while yours is still propagating. Then your block may be orphaned and you will lose the reward that you would otherwise have collected.
The key parameter is the extra delay D that would be added to the propagation time of your block, if a single transaction in it was not seen by anyone else and had to be transmitted with the block. I don't know how much D can be. Let me guess that 1 extra unseen tx adds D = 6 milliseconds to the propagation time. The probability that some other miner will solve his block in those 6 milliseconds is 600/0.006 = 1/100'000. The block reward, at the current price, is about $50'000. Therefore, the expected loss for holding a transaction, if no one else will receive it by other means, is $0.50.
It follows that, if the extra delay D is 6 ms and the price is $3800, you should not forward to other miners any transaction that pays more than $0.50 of fee. On average, you will earn more if you hold that transaction, and keep putting it into your candidate blocks, until you solve one.
Makes sense?
EDIT: By the way There is reason to suspect that the "full but non-mining" relays may not be doing their job.
submitted by jstolfi to btc [link] [comments]

What Really Happened Behind the Scenes with Segwit2x?

I was having a discussion with u/jstolfi in another thread about the topic of Segwit2x and how to me it seems a lot like its failure represented the total victory of one company (Blockstream) at the expense of every other company in the Digital Currency Group's portfolio. This seems very odd to me. Any insight into why Blockstream was allowed such a long-leash? It seems to me that all the events leading up to Segwit2x's cancellation are shrouded in mystery.
Let me give some more backstory for flavour. Before Segwit2x's cancellation I was happily perusing rBitcoin blissfully believing their narrative that everyone on btc was a conspiracy-loving kook and that moderation on Bitcoin was even-handed and they just worked to keep a few trolls out. I didn't start doubting this narrative until Segwit2x's cancellation.
When I first got interested in Bitcoin the scaling debate was drawing to a close. Segwit2x was about to happen and all the tumult and conflict was about to have a neat compromise-based resolution. The sentiment I recall around the time Segwit2x was rallying miner support even on Bitcoin was one of jubilation. The community was eager to finally have the Boogeyman of a chain split out of the way, Segwit was going to be introduced so that Greg and co. could work on their vapourware, and the blocks were going to be increased so that Bitcoin would not become a joke with high fees and slow transactions.
All the major players seemed on board. I listened to a podcast with Jeff Garzik and Charlie Lee on the scaling debate and they both seemed confident things would resolve smoothly. So I stopped paying attention. Then suddenly a spanner in the works appeared in the form of the BCH split. I didn't know what to make of that at the time, but I still felt the BTC community would rally together once Segwit2x was released in November.
Then futures started trading on Bitfinex and HitBTC and to my surprise the ratio was something like 8:1 in favour of Segwit1x. I listened to a podcast with Matt Corallo and Mike Belshe (Bitgo) shortly before Segwit2x was called off. While listening to the Podcast I could not understand why Mike Belshe had any confidence the market would accept Segwit2x considering the state of the futures market. He suggested there was a silent majority that wanted Segwit2x.
At the time I thought this was nonsense, now I'm not so sure. As part of DCG's portfolio Belshe might be privy to information about Blockstream's antics that he is unable to make public. More importantly though I am now aware that Blockstream is an investor in Bitfinex, and Bitfinex is a notoriously scammy exchange. They could very easily have leveraged their position with BFX to have them manipulate the market to make it seem as though segwit1x was unanimously favoured which could in part have led to the ultimate cancellation of Segwit2x.
I remember being shocked by the narrative shift on Bitcoin from being seemingly pro-2x to "We hate 2x because it would fire the core devs and they're the best custodians of the code." Since at the point I stopped paying attention, when Segwit2x support was rallying among the miners and the community was being prepared for Segwit2x, I thought the debate was between two factions: one faction the btc people with their conspiracy theories and their insistence that evil miners should be able to completely influence the chain at the expense of its users, and on the other side the benevolent Core devs who were doing everything in their power to prevent a takeover by miners and corporations, even agreeing to compromises like Segwit2x. I didn't realise the Core devs were the ones opposed to any sort of compromise as the entire ecosystem bowed under the weight of their 3 year refusal to take any real action. And this alone made me question the entire Core narrative. I'm a developer myself, and I know all the ways that devs can get stuck chasing perfect solutions and stubbornly and dogmatically resist pragmatic solutions because of the Utopian fallacy. So this refusal to compromise was a huge red flag for me. Once I dug deeper into the rabbit-hole I knew I could never support Core or what they are doing because I lost all respect for them as developers.
So to reiterate, what was really going on with Segwit2x? That anti-Segwit2x campaign came out of nowhere. It's interesting that there's a sudden narrative shift happening on Bitcoin now too, where suddenly a lot of people are asking for bigger blocks. That's either the narrative shifting again to try to thwart BCH, or the people who got caught in in Blockstream's astroturfing campaign waking up/being allowed to speak again. Was the majority really #NO2X or was that a ruse?
submitted by Zectro to btc [link] [comments]

Six Hundred Microseconds.

A perspective from the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited developer who discovered CVE-2018–17144.
That is about the time that Matt Corallo wanted to shave off of block validation with his pull request in 2016 to Bitcoin Core. 600µs is a lot less than what is saved with more efficient block propagation, like XThin, Compact Blocks, or now Graphene over typical links, especially those that are of similar low-end quality in network speed like Raspberry Pis are in compute speed. An optimization that was not in the focus by Core until XThin from Bitcoin Unlimited came onto the scene and kicked the Core team into gear on this issue. Furthermore, 600 microseconds is an order of magnitude or more below the variance between node validation speeds from a Raspberry Pi to a more high-end miner node and thus wholly in the range that the network already deals with. This 600 microsecond optimization now resulted in CVE-2018–17144. Certainly the most catastrophic bug in recent years, and certainly one of the most catastrophic bugs in Bitcoin ever. This bug was initially suspected to potentially cause inflation, was reported because it led to reliable crashes and confirmed by closer analysis… to be actually allowing inflation! I have consistently and repeatedly criticized hubris and arrogance in the most prominent Core developers, and done so since 2013, when the bullshitting around the 1MB block size limit started. Here we have an optimization that talks about avoiding “duplicate” validation like validation is nothing to worry about, an afterthought in Bitcoin almost. And a change that is quickly found to be good in peer reviewed, ACKed in Core-speak, in a rubber-stamp-like manner by Core developers such as Gregory Maxwell. Developers which I fully respect for their intelligence and knowledge by the way, but still, well, dislike as much for their overblown egos and underhanded discussion style as well as having done all they can to handicap Bitcoin with the 1MB limit. I also have to be honest, this change creates an unavoidable element of suspicion in me. For anyone who knows what went down and what the code paths do, it is just unavoidable to have this thought here. I like to qualify that this is not what I assert nor think is happening, but definitely crosses my mind as a potentiality! Because what is better to destroy the value of Bitcoin in the public’s eye than a silent inflation bug? What is better than creating code paths that look harmless for themselves but combined with some other, seemingly harmless rework in other areas of the code, result in utter catastrophe? And it looks like CVE-2018–17144 would eventually have become exactly this. The only thing that saved Core is their effective client diversity between revisions and someone actually noticing that there is a problem. After two years of this bug sitting around idle and exploitable. Client diversity that has been much criticized on the Bitcoin Cash side of things, but it obviously shows its advantages now. Reading the title of the original PR: “Remove duplicatable duplicate-input check from CheckTransaction” , as well as the message therein: “Benchmark results indicate this saves about 0.5–0.7ms during CheckBlock.” almost reads like it could be a sick joke being played on us all now. I always feared that someone from the bankster circles, someone injected into the Bitcoin development circles with the sole goal of wreaking unsalvageable havoc, would do exactly what happened. Injecting a silent inflation bug. Because that is what would destroy one of the very core advantages that Bitcoin has over the current status quo. That of transparency and a verifiable money supply. And, even though as a Bitcoin/BCHer, I do not see true long term prospects in Bitcoin/BTC anymore, calling the whole foundation of crypto into question just like that would have been equally disastrous to “our” variant of Bitcoin. Now, again, I am definitely not saying this is the case with PR 9049 for sure. I actually think the explanation of a young, cocky Core developer, a new “master of the universe” wreaking havoc by sheer arrogance and hubris, is the more likely explanation. People in general, but I don’t even exclude myself here, tend to believe in the competence of others if they appear just self-assured enough. This is part of the problem with attitude and psychological dynamics in this space. It creates a dangerous aura of ‘these guys know what they are doing’. I myself have done some minor work on sensitive areas in the Bitcoin Unlimited implementation. And I am working on some more “consensus critical” code for BCH now (see below). And, yes, I sometimes do lose some sleep over what could go wrong. I know I make mistakes. I have done so. I will. We all do. But I have yet to see anything resembling an admission of being imperfect by the developer in question, or any other prominent Core developer for that matter. The folks in question know exactly who I mean. There must be more reasonable folks in Core, but they are rather silent. Much worse even: In the discussion on github that follows this PR, user freetrader (a well known anonymous but still respected member of the Bitcoin Cash community who helped to create the Bitcoin Cash initial fork) asks the very valid question:
Which is answered in the, all-too-typical for Core, smug manner by Matt Corallo, notably the original author of the bug who has all reason to be a bit more careful and respectful:
The bug was disclosed in an absolutely responsible manner. As even the full disclosure on bitcoincore.org’s own pages notices, it went to a set of trustworthy people by the person who found the bug and did so in an encrypted PGP message only. This leaves the question why Core recklessly endangered the security of Bitcoin Cash as well endangering the myriad of altcoins that are out there and still susceptible with this premature and hasty publication. The back references from altcoins merging the change trickling into PR #14247 are a glimpse into this process. Now, Matt talks about “running out of time” in the above reply. But what time is that exactly? If you think hard about this, this can only be a distrust in any of the informed parties that they’ll leak this secret prematurely and thus catch Bitcoin Core with their pants down, or as a worse assumption, be actually exploited by one of the informed parties against BTC. Bitcoin Unlimited was ferociously attacked, presumably by deranged BTC supporters from the wider ‘community’, when it had a bug. And it seems a bit like Core members assumed a payback by deranged BCH supporters in kind here (I am not doubting those supporters exist), given the hints in the original disclosure that this bug has actually been discovered by someone aligned with the Bitcoin Cash side of things. But not only that, Core seems to have assumed that members on the BCH side of things who have been informed are deranged or at least irresponsible enough to leak this info to the wrong parties! I like to applaud deadalnix and the ABC team for what I was thinking the Core team should have done here as well: Bury the fix in a bit more and unrelated refactoring code so as to fix it but also to buy some more time for an upgrade. Maybe Core wasn’t creative enough to see a way to hide the problem, but then they also had no reason to blare it out like they did here. This was very irresponsible, and, and this should reach any altcoin impacted by this, this is definitely solely Bitcoin Core’s responsibility. No one else said anything in public before Core published their PR. It should also be noted by the Core team that this creates a strong disincentive to keep them in the loop with initial disclosure for anyone finding a bug. Cory Fields has talked about the risks and dangers with regards to sitting on the knowledge of a 0-day on Bitcoin Cash, and this bug discussed herein is one that was worth at least 10x more in potential damage and thus also shorting value and angry deranged people (a.k.a. “31337 crypto trading bros”) capable of violence. If a party behaves this irresponsibly, it shouldn’t be surprised if it degrades itself to a lower position in the food chain with regards to vulnerability disclosures. I am not saying I won’t inform next time I might stumble upon something, but this is not a good way to create the necessary trust. The Discovery and Disclosure Sitting in my little van by the sea on Monday, I was working on getting the new CHECKDATASIG/-VERIFY opcodes that are about to activate for Bitcoin (Cash) in November implemented on the Bitcoin Unlimited client. I have been looking at a potentially neat use case for those and am motivated to get this done. Around noon, I noticed that there is a lot of divergence in the way that signature operations counting was done in ABC vs. how it was done in Bitcoin Unlimited (BU). I agreed earlier with the BU team that I would go and port most of the CDS/-V stuff over from ABC, but I felt overwhelmed. My thoughts were that: Ok, this is doable, but this needs a lot more analysis and also many more eyeballs for review. And will take a lot longer. Sigh. While doing so, I stumbled upon this comment in the ABC code base: Check for duplicate inputs — note that this check is slow so we skip it in CheckBlock My initial reaction was a slight “Eh, WTF is going on with that comment?”. And then I looked up uses of CheckRegularTransaction in ABC, which is the renamed variant of CheckTransaction in Core (but I didn’t know at that time). I dug through the code to try to understand the logic. I noticed that block validation skips this test as it is assumed to have already happen during mempool ingress. My next thought was a bit of a sinking feeling and a “Uh-oh, I really hope the folks from ABC have thought about the difference between the mempool and block transmission and that those are distinct ways into the system. There might be a problem here!”. And then I went and thought about a way to test this. I patched an ABC node to not relay transactions even when asked and connected one unpatched and one patched node together in -regtest mode and created a transaction with a duplicate input (which the above test was skipping). Wham! assert(), Aborted. Next thought was along the lines: “Oh fuck, this doesn’t look good, gotta notify deadalnix and the crew what is lurking in ABC, this doesn’t look good at all. [email protected]#%!!”. Being aware of the danger that this could maybe be further exploited towards an actual inflation and chain-splitting bug (but I didn’t further check the specifics of this, as a node crash bug with assert() failure was already enough to be worried about), I quickly and somewhat inaccurately noted to myself (and timestamped): BitcoinABC does not check for duplicate inputs when processing a block, only when inserting a transaction into the mempool. This is dangerous as blocks can be generated with duplicate transactions and then sent through e.g. compact block missing transactions and avoid hitting the mempool, creating money out of thin air. awemany [Footnote: I timestamped this message in the BU slack, adding an innocuous situational lie of ‘Ooops, wrong channel’ to it. I also tried timestamping my findings on on my usual go-to site originstamp.org but they only submit timestamps every 24h due to the fees on Bitcoin being too high to do more often… I guess I should maybe get into the habit of doing timestamping transactions myself..] Opening up a disclosure email to deadalnix, I started to have a thought of: “Ok, actually, where is this stuff coming from, when and where did they introduce it into the code, might we be lucky and this is not in a release yet?” And then I noticed that this stuff was coming from Core. Already having written a disclosure report, I rechecked whether Core was vulnerable as well. And, once again: Wham! assert(), Aborted. I started to get shivers up my spine. Uh oh! Core has a crash bug, potentially worse. Stuff in the code since 2016. NOT good. NOT good at all. I like to say here that I actually had a feeling of this is bad, not this is good because of Core vs. Cash or something like that. I (unfortunately) still own a (for my poor soul significant) amount of BTC and for that reason and others do not like having bugs in Core either. Being a responsible citizen in this space, I then wrote the encrypted disclosure email to Wladimir, sickpig and some others, attaching a variant of the ABC and the Core patch to exploit this problem to my disclosure. I also put in a BCH address for a bounty payment to myself into that email (disclosed as proof below), as I feel this should be something worth a little performance bonus 🙂 No money has been received at the time of this writing yet. If you want to change this, you can send me BCH here: bitcoincash:qr5yuq3q40u7mxwqz6xvamkfj8tg45wyus7fhqzug5 (1NBKDco2EctDXvBv6r4hqJRPWfgX9jFpqs) I chose the handle beardnboobies as this is the first thing that came into my mind when I thought about this very discovery here. I thought: Ok, I am slowly becoming a pale nerd working on just code, with beard and manboobies. Oh well. I have noticed that this handle was — for whatever reason- taken out of the release notes that are checked into the main development branch of Bitcoin Core and is only available in the release branch / tag, being replaced with anonymous contributor on the main branch. I wonder: Do you Core guys feel this is too unprofessional to have this pseudonym appear in the main branch? Have some humor please! 🙂 By the way, a plea: I urge everyone in BCH as well as BTC (as well as impacted altcoins), to take a fine-toothed comb through the code with the goal of looking for similar issues! More specifically, I faintly remember (though might be wrong) from discussions back with Core devs on reddit in 2016 and before, that the idea that there’s a lot of “duplicate validation” between mempool and block validation was kind of en vogue back then. Potentially more code is vulnerable because it assumes that mempool validation can stand in for block validation. I suspect more, though maybe not as grave bugs, in this area. Reactions After I submitted it, I felt relief and then I started to watch the space from the back. A weird situation. Only then I also fully realized what Core contributor Cory Fields described with a bit of a different angle and on a smaller scale, the weirdness of having found a bug that you know is worth millions at least, massively impacting a $100 billion currency. The fact that I could have gone and rented hash power and shorted BTC and exploited this. But also the fact that I did not! Wladimir eventually wrote me an email that they’re preparing releases (and at that time or around it they published the PR), so I responded expressing my astonishment of the quite public handling of this serious issue. What I was amazed by in general was the long time it took for the bug to blow up to its full proportions, with the process seemingly even not over now. One thing is certainly others digging into this and realizing the full severity of this — as it turns out, yes it CAN be used to double-spend and inflate on BTC after all! — but also the time it takes from the initial PR being public, seemingly not noticed at all and the first media article being written. And then I noticed the usual spin. The “stupid BCashers can’t code and are irresponsible and what not” angle that is all too often repeated then by seemingly cerebrally insufficient Core supporters. I quote the below to gloat maybe. But also to show the world WHAT kind of bullshit the Bitcoin Cash side of things is facing here in a constant barrage. This is just from a few of the more prominent Core supporters and devs. There is, of course, a lot more folks foaming “btrash, bcash” at the mouth on reddit and twitter. Tone Vays and Jimmy Song Here we have Tone Vays, who likes to pose with the undercurrent of violence by wielding weapons on Twitter and apparently also on Youtube, discussing this bug with Jimmy Song in an unwillingly hilarious Youtube video:
Luke-Jr I like to say some words about this tweet of Luke-Jr, committing the sin of bearing false witness about us irresponsible “BCashers”…
I suspect Luke-Jr has been left in the dark about the background of this disclosure as well, not belonging to the innermost circles either. Careful observers might have noticed even more of this dynamic happening with other people. And note again: I have done everything that is necessary to make this a responsible disclosure. The initial, unobfuscated public disclosure happened by Bitcoin Core on their github! This is exactly the opposite situation compared to what Luke-Jr is describing. This is despicable.
From:Luke-Jr
Closing remarks Apart from pointing out the insane spin of some Core supporters in the preceding part, I simply want to take the opportunity now to urge caution for everyone here. Bugs lurk everywhere. Everyone is imperfect. Myself included, of course. I started to like Jihan Wu’s credo of “Don’t play hatred, don’t wish competing coins ill. Just wish and try to make BCH better” (from twitter) and see BCH and BTC in fierce but still civil competition. Civil competition obviously meaning no violence, including no violence like attacking each other’s nodes. I like to reiterate that, despite the gloating and strong words you might find in this article, I did everything to play fair. I also agree in general with Cory Fields from Core that it is not very easy to find the necessary disclosure addresses and information. He’s right about the lack of easily accessible GPG keys both on the BCH as well as — I like to add- on the BTC side of things. I didn’t find a non-retracted key of Pieter Wuille in time. I also like to note that a few things went finally completely out of the window here with this bug, for example Core’s idea of ‘the code being law’. If the code is law, does that mean that you have to accept inflation now? Or is it actually the Core devs steering the ship? Is an element of reasonableness entering the space? And yes, I sincerely believe, despite the current price ratio that BCH has a much brighter future than BTC, by being fundamentalist on the principles that matter and came along with the original white paper while not being fundamental on things that were created post-hoc — like the 1MB (now 4MW) limit in the Bitcoin Core implementation. As I also don’t think extended inflation is crucial for BTC’s operation. But anyone is free to buy or sell as they want. Let’s continue competing. Let’s civilly inform each other of bugs. May the best chain win. Finally, I like to thank Andrea Suisani, Andrew Stone and Peter Rizun for their review of this article and valuable input.
submitted by Cobi-communities to u/Cobi-communities [link] [comments]

What is up with all these Bitcoin devs who think that their job includes HARD-CODING CERTAIN VALUES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USER-CONFIGURABLE (eg: "seed servers")?

Recently, the developer of SegWit2x / BTC1, Jeff Garzik, caused some controversy by hard-coding the "seed servers" which Bitcoin uses to first start hunting for "peers".
Worse than that: apparently one of the "seeds" is a company he started, variously named Chainalysis / Skry / Bloq - which apparently specializes in de-anonymizing Bitcoin transactions and performing KYC/AML - and which also has apparently entered into agreements with Interpol.
Seriously, WTF???
This is what "Bitcoin devs" still consider to be part of their "job" - hard-coding parameters like this, which affect everyone else on the network - and which could easily be "exposed" to be made user-configurable - instead of being baked into the source code and requiring a friggin' recompile to change???
This recent event has refocused attention on the fact all these past years, most of these seed servers in "the" existing (legacy) client running on most of the network have _also been hard-coded - to domains under the control of "devs associated with Blockstream".
I don't like the list of seed servers in Bitcoin Core
Pieter Wuille - does not support BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Matt Corallo - does not support BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Luke Dashjr - supports BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Christian Decker - supports BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Jonas Schnelli - supports BIP148
Peter Todd - supports BIP148 - worked for Samson Mow who works for Blockstream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6nd50h/i_dont_like_the_list_of_seed_servers_in_bitcoin/
The corporate takeover of bitcoin illustrated in 1 commit
In The corporate takeover of bitcoin illustrated in 1 commit a user complains that btc1 changing the seed servers to servers run by some companies (see commit) equals a "corporate takeover of bitcoin". I never really took much care who runs these seed server, although they do posses a certain power over the network as correctly pointed out by P. Todd in the same thread:
...and the key thing with that is being able to control what nodes a node connects to can be a very powerful tool to attack new nodes, as it lets you prevent a node from learning about the valid chain with the most work.
[...]
4 out of 5 people running the bitcoin networks seed servers are directly associated with Blockstream!
I don't even believe that Blockstream is actually plotting an evil, forceful takeover of bitcoin using the seed servers. However it beautifully counteracts Adam's "decentralization is everything" arguments. What is most troublesome to me, is that this simple information is not allowed to appear on r\bitcoin at all.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6n8vqc/the_corporate_takeover_of_bitcoin_illustrated_in/
Seriously?
Bitcoin is almost 9 years old - and most people are still running clients which use hard-coded values (which require an inconvenient recompile to reconfigure) for the "seed servers"??
Maybe this is, in some sense, part of the reason why people like BlueMatt and Luke-Jr and Pieter Wiulle think they can lord it over us and tell everyone else what to do? ...because they have quietly (and unfairly / incompetently) hard-coded their own friggin' server domain names directly into everyone else's client code, as our "seed servers"?
Is the low level of "quality" we - as a community - have become accustomed to from our devs?
Do other clients (Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC) also gratuitously hard-code their "seed servers" like this?
Here's a post from a year ago regarding "seed servers" in Classic:
How come "classic" uses the same alert keys/DNS seeds as Core?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44atsp/how_come_classic_uses_the_same_alert_keysdns/
Meanwhile, here's the main question:
Why are any "serious" Bitcoin clients still "gratuitously" hard-coding any values like this?
Why has our "ecosystem" / "community" not naturally evolved to the point where we have some public "wiki" pages listing all the "good" (community-recognized, popular) seed servers - and every user configures their own client software by choosing who they want from this list?
(Maybe because we've been distracted by bullshit for these past few years, fighting with these very same devs because they've refused provide any support for users who want bigger blocks?)
What would users have to do if (God forbid) something were to happen to the servers of those 4-5 seed servers which are currently hard-coded into nearly everyone's clients?
In that situation (assuming some "new" seed servers quickly appeared) people would be have two options:
  • Edit their C++ source code and download/install a (trusted, verified) C++ compiler (if they don't already have one), and recompile the friggin' code; or
  • Wait until new binaries got posted online - and download them (and verify them).
Seriously?
This unnecessary "centralization point" (or major inconvenience / bottleneck) has been sitting in our code this entire time - while these supposedly knowledgeable devs keep beating us over their head with their mantra of "decentralization" - which they have actually been doing so little to maximize?
Psycho-Socio-Economic Side Bar
Serious (but delicate/senstive) question: How many of these "devs" have developed (possibly unconscious?) behaviors in life where they try to make users dependent on them?
"Vendor lock-in" is a thing - a very bad thing, which certain Bitcoin devs have exhibited a tendency to inflict on users - in many cases due to rather obvious (psychological, social, and/or economic) reasons.
We should gently (but firmly) reject these tendencies whenever any dev exhibits them.
Our community should expect and demand an accessible, user-friendly interface for all user-configurable parameters - to maximize decentralization and autonomy
  • In "command-line" versions of the client program, these kind of parameters should be:
    • in a separate config file - using some ultra-simple, standard format such as YAML or JSON
    • also configurable via options (eg, --seed-server) upon invocation on the command-line
  • In GUI versions version of the client program (using some popular cross-platform standard such as Qt, HTML, etc.) these kind of parameters should be exposed as user-configurable options.
Yes, these user-configurable values for things like "seed servers" (or "max blocksize") could come pre-configured to "sensible defaults - so that the software will work "out of the box" (immediately upon downloading and installing) - with no initial configuration required by the user.
Yes: Even the blocksize has always been user-configurable - but most users don't know this, because most devs have been hiding this fact from us.
Three recent posts by u/ForkiusMaximus explained how Adjustable-Blocksize-Cap (ABC) Bitcoin clients shatter this illusion:
Adjustable-blocksize-cap (ABC) clients give miners exactly zero additional power. BU, Classic, and other ABC clients are really just an argument in code form, shattering the illusion that devs are part of the governance structure.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/614su9/adjustableblocksizecap_abc_clients_give_miners/
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/602vsy/clearing_up_some_widespread_confusions_about_bu/
Note about Bitcoin ABC vs Bitcoin Unlimited:
There is a specific new Bitcoin client called Bitcoin ABC, which functions similar to Bitcoin Unlimited - with the important difference that Bitcoin ABC is _guaranteed to hard-fork to bigger blocks on August 1_.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Documentation for the behavior of these various hard-forks is currently still rather disorganized :-)
All serious devs should be expected to provide code which does not require a "recompile" to change these "initial, sensible" default parameters.
I mean - come on. Even back in the 80s people had "*.INI" files on DOS and Windows.
Nearly all users understand and know how to set user-configurable values - for decades.
How many people are familiar with using a program which has a "Preferences" screen? (Sometimes you may have to close and re-open the program in order for your new preferences to take effect.) This is really basic, basic functionality which nearly all software provides via a GUI (and or config file and/or command-line options).
And nearly all devs have been offering this kind of functionality - in either command-line parameters, config files, and/or graphic user interfaces (GUIs).
Except most Bitcoin devs.
The state of "software development" for Bitcoin clients seems really messed up in certain ways like this.
As users, we need to start demanding simple, standard features in our client software - such as accessible, user-friendly configurability of parameter values - without the massive inconvenience of a recompile.
What is a "Bitcoin client"?
After nearly 9 years in operation, our community should by now have a basic concept or definition of what a "Bitcoin client" is / does - probably something along the lines of:

A Bitcoin client is a device for reading (and optionally appending to) the immutable Bitcoin Blockchain.

Based on that general concept / definition, a program which does all of the above and also gratuitously "hard-codes" a bunch of domain names for "seed servers" is not quite the same thing as a "a Bitcoin client".
Such an "overspecialized" client actually provides merely a subset of the full functionality of a true "Bitcoin client", eg:
  • An "overspecialized" client only enables connecting to certain "seed servers" upon startup (in accordance with the "gratuitous opinion" of the dev who (mis)translated the community's conceptual specifications to C++ code)
  • An "overspecialized" client only enables mining blocks less that a certain size (in accordance with the "gratuitous opinion" of the dev who (mis)translated the community's conceptual specifications to C++ code)
One of the main problems with nearly all Bitcoin clients developed so far is that they are gratuitously opinionated: they "gratuitously" hard-code particular values (eg, "max blocksize", "seed servers") which are not part of the whitepaper, and not part of the generally accepted definition of a "Bitcoin client".
This failure on the part of devs to provide Bitcoin clients which behave in accordance with the community's specification of "Bitcoin clients" is seriously damaging Bitcoin - and needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
Right now is a good opportunity - with so many new Bitcoin clients popping up, as the community prepares to fork.
All devs working on various Bitcoin client software offerings need to wake up and realize that there is about to be a major battle to find out which Bitcoin client software offering performs "best" (in the user-interface sense - and ultimately in the economic sense) at:

reading (and optionally appending to) the immutable Bitcoin Blockchain

The Bitcoin client software offerings which can optimally (and most simply and securely :-) "satisfy" the above specification (and not merely some gratuitously overspecialized "subset" of it) will have the most success.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus

The title of this post is a compressed summary combining some important quotes from several recent comments by u/ForkiusMaximus, which I thought were worth highlighting here in a post of their own.
His comments remind us that Bitcoin was already brilliantly designed by Satoshi so that the majority of "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking" miners will always be economically incentivized to use their hashpower to vote for the rule changes which will maximize their (and everyone else's) Bitcoin profits - and they will always do this regardless of any censorship or centralized dev teams.
Meanwhile, Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) totally fail to understand this subtle but vital point: they think that devs somehow control Bitcoin, by forcing people to run certain code... or moderators somehow control Bitcoin, by censoring certain forums... or now non-mining nodes can somehow control Bitcoin by suggesting a futile and pointless "user-activated soft-fork" (UASF) - ie a fork not supported by actual mining hashpower.
This all shows that Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) have a fundamental misunderstanding of the most important aspect of Bitcoin - the fact that:
This is why the 21 million coin cap will never get increased.
And this is why blocksizes will always continue to moderately increase.
Not because some dev team made it "hard" to modify these settings in the code.
And not because some moderator censored some discussion about some alternative clients.
The reason Bitcoin works is simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking".
This is why mining support for Core/Blockstream's centrally-planned blocksize has dropped to 2/3 of network hashpower (despite their big team of "experts" and all their censorship and fiat funding).
And this is why 1/3 of mining hashpower has already started voting for some form of market-driven blocksizes...
... not because BU or Classic suddenly "gave" them this power (after all, they always had this power themselves)...
... but simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking", and they know that bigger blocks will bring higher profits.
So, miners have always been able to use their hashpower (and even modify the Bitcoin client source code if they wanted) in order to vote for rule changes which would support bigger blocksizes and higher Bitcoin profits for everyone - with or without any help from BU, Classic, etc. - and there is nothing that any dev team (or any censored forum) can do to prevent miners from doing this.
So it is inevitable that miners will use their hashpower to vote for bigger blocksizes, because this means much higher Bitcoin profits for them (and also bigger Bitcoin profits for the rest of us :-)... simply because (as Satoshi clearly did understand, but most Core/Blockstream devs clearly do not understand):

The vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking".

The original comments by u/ForkiusMaximus providing an explanation of these important (but often subtle) concepts are shown below - with some text bolded & italicized for empahsis.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5z3hv5/bloomberg_antpool_will_switch_entire_pool_to/dev7drt/?context=3
We don't have to trust [miners] to be "honest" as Satoshi unfortunately worded it.
Replace the term honest with "intelligently profit-seeking."
Bitcoin assumes miners are intelligently profit-seeking, meaning that they have a decent enough read on what the ecosystem wants that they can and will make any necessary changes to please the ecosystem and thus boost their own bottom line.
Greg's recent comments on BU totally discredited him, as he revealed himself to have no friggin' idea how Bitcoin works.
He actually thought "honest" meant something like "plays by Core rules." That's a completely broken understanding of Bitcoin, and implies centralization.
It's the kind of misconception I'd expect from a run-of-the-mill nobody on a forum, not from the mighty leader of Core/BS. I'm kinda pissed I wasted mental clock ticks trying to debate this guy without realizing he has not just a flawed understanding, but zero understanding of how Bitcoin works at all. And of course all his supporters parrot his nonsense view of how Bitcoin supposedly works.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yxreu/classic_fearmongering_example_by_bitcoin_core/dev0x5d/?context=3
Mining control is the key invention of Bitcoin. It's how it doesn't just devolve into yet another failed subjective monetary scheme. If you don't like it, you should figure out another scheme. Perhaps proof of stake is more your thing?
Also, it's pretty amazing that you think just because BU makes it more convenient for miners to do what they always could do, that that somehow dooms Bitcoin. If that dooms it, it was already a dead man walking.
How do you propose to stop miners from altering their own blocksize settings?
If you have no answer, you have no grounds to attack BU without falling into the category of being a Bitcoin skeptic.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zoywt/the_largest_problem_of_bitcoin_is_that_most/df0jutk/
It's actually fairly subtle: mining IS how you vote for rule changes, BUT miners have every incentive to vote with the market, so they DON'T have any meaningful ability to push rules on the community (even under BU).
There is no trust or "honesty" involved, as Satoshi unfortunately worded it. There is only the underlying assumption that makes Bitcoin work: the assumption that the vast majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING.
The only way this system can break is if the majority of miners seek something other than profit (say a government took the major mining pools over and somehow hashers couldn't switch away in time), or the miners misjudge what the market wants (due to a failure of market communication).
However, in this case and on these timescales it is obvious the current crop of miners are generally profit-seeking. And if they are misjudging the market, we have a remedy: we can resolve that through fork futures trading on the exchanges.
Note that this is just moving the decision from the first kind of investors (miners) to the general investing public. Miners are a first-line proxy for investors in general. If they fail to reflect investor will, investors are free to take it to the market by forking and trading the two sides of the fork (preferably as futures so as to avoid scrambling to upgrade urgently).
Also important would be to maximize freedom of discussion so that market communication is not distorted. Finally, the whole idea of the UASF people, that we would poll the ecosystem somehow to prove the economic majority wants some change, already means that merely showing this proof to the miners should convince them, as they are intelligently profit-seeking. But that obviates the need for a UASF in the first place (!).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yyotu/if_blockstream_core_offchain_solutions_are_any/deu0hpn/
I used to think they don't understand markets, but in fact they are stuck at an even more basic level than that.
I took a spin through the wreckage of /Bitcoin today for the first time in weeks. It was pleasantly surprising to see how with the ramping up of miner support for BU, the Core arguments have been reduced to obvious fundamental misunderstandings of Bitcoin that are now trivial to rebut.
In a word, they haven't actually grasped the concept of incentives.
This goes all the way to the top, not just the supporters but the key Core devs themselves. They don't understand markets, yes, but it's not like they are even close. They lack the understanding of even the fundamental building blocks of markets.
When you think about it, governance by incentives is pretty subtle. Even if one reads the whitepaper and goes, "Oh yeah I see, miners would be motivated not to kill the golden goose in that situation," it is quite another matter to fully internalize the fact that the only reason Bitcoin is a thing at all is because of the assumption that miners are not idiots. Or more accurately, that miners as a group will never have a gross failure to correctly apprehend the wishes of the market.
This is the source of all the weird claims about miners controlling or not controlling Bitcoin.
Core and Blockstream dev Matt Corallo thinks that if miners were allowed to (not mentioning how they could be disallowed to), they would mine extra coins for all the "extra profits." Again this goes beyond failing to understand markets, all the way down to failing to understand or take seriously incentives as a concept at all. I'm not blaming him, he's a coder; I blame those who take his commentary on non-coding matters seriously, merely by dint of his coding skill.
A constant refrain from Core supporters as BU gain hashpower is that "miners don't control Bitcoin." This is actually correct: miners don't control Bitcoin, they won't act against the economic majority. But not because they can't. They certainly can, just like oncoming traffic can swerve toward you on the freeway. But they don't, because that would destroy them as well.
Thus is the subtlety of governance by incentives. Miners have control, but they won't use it to do anything that displeases the ecosystem, on balance. Or they might, but in that case Bitcoin is a failed concept as its fundamental assumption is then proven to be broken.
Many or most anti-BU arguments unwittingly take that form: they start with the premise that Bitcoin is broken [i.e., miners are idiots or that they grossly fail to read the market] and reason from there to conclude that BU is broken. Examples include the median EB attack, the various big block attacks, and the bizarre claim that BU has a "new security model" because it "lets miners do something they couldn't before" (ironically implying Core has snuck in a new security model where they try to restrain miners by making it inconvenient for them to change a blocksize setting).
Hence we see that it isn't merely a matter of Core and Blockstream people having initially dismissed Bitcoin and then later seeing the light when the price rises forced them to look deeper. They in fact still haven't seen the light. They never fully understood the basic dynamic that makes Bitcoin tick, let alone understanding higher level concepts like markets. This is why they so easily fall into the central planning mindset, seeing Bitcoin as a fragile little thing that must be defended by their wise paternalistic guidance.
The Core devs have replaced the fundamental assumption in the whitepaper, that most miners are honest (I prefer "most miners are not idiots" as it is harder to misinterpret), with the fundamental assumption that the right set of people (or the right repository governance structure) is in charge of the "reference implementation."
This manifests as a kind of envy toward the miners and comes with all the other curious trappings of the Core worldview: the code is the spec, hard forks are dangerous, Core = Bitcoin, anything that deviates from Core diktats is an "altcoin," it doesn't count as censorship to delete discussion of alternative clients as they are "off topic," nodes > miners, anything that makes it a bit easier for miners to do something Core doesn't like is an "attack" on Bitcoin, centralized control by Core is necessary to preserve decentralization, UASF is a viable idea, Segwit has consensus among "the Bitcoin experts," and so on.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yvtrn/new_atl_alltime_low_for_bitcoin_core_client/detpkdj/
Estimated Core hashrate down below 2/3 already.
Core has lost supermajority status, even with all the historical inertia, miner conservatism, and crackerjack programmers they are reported to have on their side. Even with the "consensus" of "the experts."
Even with two years of mindbendingly extreme censorship in their favor on the two biggest Bitcoin discussion forums.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yvuw7/while_nobody_was_paying_attention/detqbnd/?context=3
The Core devs have directly created this situation by keeping the blocksize cap locked down long after it became controversial. The logic of how users make needed changes to the protocol, as mentioned in the whitepaper, requires that users be able to easily adjust any settings that are controversial, so as to be able to "vote with their CPU" power in a smooth manner.
Core tries to leverage their waning "reference implementation" status to rig the vote by deliberately leaving the now maximally controversial blocksize limit hard-coded, forcing the user to venture out into relatively new dev team offerings if they want to cast a vote. This is exactly how you create the conditions for a contentious split. They have brought this upon themselves entirely.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5z6w2u/bitcoin_on_linux_should_be_a_virtual_package/dewjwlh/
Adam implies BU is pre-alpha, yet it is winning in the only arena where people actually put their money where their mouths are.
How pathetic does it make Core that they are losing to a pre-alpha client?
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Adam Back says "Blockstream Core" is a conspiracy theory. What do you think?

Trying to rebut the suggestion that Blockstream has a conflict of interest owing to its influence over Core development, Adam Back claimed:
I dont think anyone other [than] conspiracy theorists even accepts that "blockstream core" exists! blockstream has 1.5x full time developers working on bitcoin ...
Here are some facts supporting the idea Blockstream and Core are in bed with each other and can be regarded together as "Blockstream Core":
Core developers founded Blockstream
Blockstream was founded in 2014 by Bitcoin Core developers Gregory Maxwell, Dr. Pieter Wuille, Matt Corallo, Jorge Timón and Mark Friedenbach, as well as several non-Bitcoin Core developers including hashcash inventor Dr. Adam Back and venture capitalist Austin Hill. (source)
Also Luke Dashjr source
The Core devs are still listed as part of Blockstream's team.
At least 10 Core devs work for Blockstream (or 9 if you exclude Adam Back - should we?)
  1. Gregory Maxwell, 2. Matt Corallo, 3. Jorge Timon, 4. Mark Friedenbach, 5. Patrick Strateman, 6. Warren Togami, 7. Adam Back, 8. Pieter Wuille, 9. Gregory Sanders, 10. Glenn Willen Edit: 11. Luke Dashjr
Sources: Mike Hearn and Aaron van Wirdum, see also Blockstream.
Segwit
Core's contentious addition to Bitcoin, Segwit, is the baby of a Blockstream employee, Pieter Wuille: Blockstream are vocal in their advocacy of Segwit adoption.
The Hong Kong Agreement
The Hong Kong roundtable agreement was intended to prevent miners forking to Bitcoin Classic and ensure the adoption of Segwit. Several Blockstream personnel signed, but as Core members. Except Adam, who it is widely understood wished to sign as "individual", but changed this to "Blockstream" at the miners' insistence, the miners clearly regarding Blockstream itself as party to the agreement and underlining the common perception that Blockstream has significant influence over the development of Core code and that the two are intertwined.
Incidentally, anyone know who paid Adam Back's and the Core developers' expenses?
Discussion
It seems to me the facts above strongly suggest there is enough of a connection between Blockstream and Core that it is perfectly justifiable to regard them for practical purposes as "Blockstream Core".
Adam's statement that Blockstream has 1.5x full time developers working on bitcoin may or may not be true in some narrow sense, but when 9 or 10 Core devs work for Blockstream his statement is hardly full and frank disclosure. It smacks of trying to hide something: what is his game?
Perhaps he is afraid that if everyone realises "Blockstream Core" truly describes reality then everyone will also realise Core and its reference client may have been captured for Blockstream's private profit?
Anyway, do you have any more facts or observations? For example, do Core devs have Blockstream shares or options on shares? What influence does Blockstream have on Core and vice versa and how is that influence exercised?
And do you agree with Adam that the idea of "Blockstream Core" is just a conspiracy theory?
Edit: Some previous COI discussion: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/46que7/blockstream_meet_the_team/
Edit 2:Commits in the last year (source):
Blockstream: Greg Maxwell: 46; Jorge Timon: 17; Pieter Wuille: 163; Mark Friedenbach: 0; Patrick Strateman: 31; Warren Togami: 6; Adam Back: 0; Greg Sanders: 32; Glenn Willen: 0
Total commits for listed Blockstream developers: 295
Other: Wladimir Van Der Laan: 210; Marco Falke: 170; Corey Fields: 152; Jonas Schnelli: 87; Suhas Daftuar: 73; Alex Morcos: 65; fanquake: 56; Pavel Janik: 45
Total commits for listed non-Blockstream developers: 858
submitted by bitlop to btc [link] [comments]

Is it possible to objectively discuss things without getting dragged to the "Dragons Den"?

The computer science debates about the best ways to scale Bitcoin are far too important for us to take “sides”.
“Beating” the other guy doesn’t serve any of us, and it doesn’t serve Bitcoin.
In these discussions we need to be as sure as possible that we are not just winning an argument, or making talking points but that we are factually correct.
One thing everyone should agree on is the need for truthful and factual statements when discussing these important issues.
Unfortunately, the Bitcoin community learned some very bad habits from the world of politics.
[Disclaimer: I do not work for Blockstream and I never have, just as I did not work for Roger Ver the other day when I defended him against a similar baseless attack about Mt.. Gox https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6846wo/message_to_rogedgvnrqk/ ]
For example, it is difficult to have any discussion in Bitcoin without someone bringing up the “Dragon’s Den”.
"Dragon’s Den" is brought up as an argument point often by everyone from major minors, to CEOs and analysts.
But what do we really know about “Dragon’s Den”?
What is the full body of evidence regarding the claims about Dragons Den?
Well, it’s pretty simple:
1) One lone LN developer claimed that there was a secret channel used for trolling
2) Someone posted a screenshot showing the existence of the slack channel and some people chatting in it
What is absent from this evidence:
So really, we have CEOs, miners and thousands of people who care passionately about Bitcoin using “Dragon’s Den” as a talking point when really – – – the entire thesis about dragons den comes down to “a guy said”.
One doesn’t even have to be critical of the developer who claimed its existence to have doubts about the story.
If you look carefully, Joseph Poon never even claimed to have first-hand knowledge about dragons den being used for trolling – he didn’t even mention that he ever visited the channel.
One guy saying something doesn’t make it true.
One doesn't even have to think that Joseph is a bad actor (and I don't) maybe he was misinformed, didn't think clearly before making his statement, had a misunderstanding or exaggerated.
There was a Reddit post asking him to clarify but it doesn't seem he did.
So what is Dragon’s Den really?
Honestly my best educated guess is that the slack channel simply existed as a place for like-minded individuals to discuss topics and opinions they share an interest in.
After it was revealed to the public, the channel was opened to a number of interested/concerned community members to review including me. This was the first time I knew about or entered the channel. What I saw was pretty similar to the regular Slack. Bias against BU? Of course? Bias in favor of the core roadmap? Sure? An organized trolling campaign? Doubtful.
My guess is that the channel was similar before it became public.
Now it is possible that, as part of an elaborate ruse, participants in the channel have gone and created a new double secret channel where the real trolling is being organized and are still participating in the existing “Dragon’s Den” channel as some sort of theater to throw people off their trail and fool someone like me into posting this.
Maybe, maybe, maybe
But I doubt it. Occams Razor is a good explanation – the most likely explanation is that it simply people who are like-minded gathering together
Just as the most likely explanation for a lot of behavior in Bitcoin is the simple one.
I don't think Gavin is in the CIA or Roger is secretly trying to harm Bitcoin or Blockstream is involved in some conspiracy to destroy Bitcoin with AXA and I don't think Bitmain purposely intended to shut down miners (but the risk was still real) and I don't think Greg Maxwell works for the CIA either.
People have human faults, they mess up, they are self interested etc. Occasionally they will be behind some elaborate ruse, but usually behavior comes down to just people being people.
What about the trolling?
Again absence any evidence I think the simplest explanation is that like-minded people hanging around in the channel are likely to react in similar manners to various news and tweets.
It’s most likely like “Hey did you see this ridiculous argument John Doe just tweeted?" and then a number of like-minded people make comments on that post. Could this be considered organized trolling? Maybe. Same way posting a tweet on one or the other Reddit sub will cause a dozen people to comment...this seems like organized trolling.
Having been attacked, criticized and trolled by many of the same people who are very active in that channel I know how it feels: even half a dozen people can easily make you feel overwhelmed by attackers. Between misconceptions, logical fallacies, name-calling, retweets, reposts and comments for multiple people you can feel like Boromir in the first Lord of the Rings movie with arrow after arrow shot at you.
But really – this is just part of the way the Internet works.
I once even found myself banned from the entire Slack in question. I annoyed people with my continual calls for compromise as well as occasionally defending people from exactly the type of unfair or inaccurate attack I’m talking about here.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, I put my differences aside with the people at in the channel and since then have had a lot of productive and mutually respectful discussions about this important technology.
But core runs this!
This is the thing, they really don’t. I tried to get this point across in a recent blog post.
Down With Bitcoin Core (as a noun used to describe people)
https://medium.com/@brucefenton/down-with-bitcoin-core-as-a-noun-used-to-describe-people-9d76d4b3cbef
I know it’s frustrating, and I used to feel the same way as many BU supporters in thinking that “core” was one monolithic, like-minded entity. ** It’s really not. It's just not factual to look at it this way**
*Only after a lot of time spending a lot of time meeting with and discussing issues with numerous core and non-core developers did I come to this opinion. *
I now think that it is only fair for us to judge individual people on the individual actions that they take. Not actions taken by a group.
Worse yet: Some core developers even use this word “core” as a noun to describe people when it suits them. This is equally wrong. Individual people and only individual people should be held accountable for the actions that they actually taken the words that they actually say.
If we do that, it’s harder to argue.
Groups are easy to hate. It’s very easy to discuss to prescribe opinions or characteristics on “Republicans” or “liberals” or "core" or "btc". If you are running for office, it’s a great idea to use these types of terms: they seek to divide and drive wedges.
The world of politics is not that simple: on major issues ranging from the drug war to war, foreign policy and taxes there are vast differences between people who carry the various political labels.
An open source project, particularly one as diverse as Bitcoin, has much more nuance than this even.
There is definitely no universal “core” opinion.
“Core developers” include a wide variety of people: Gavin Andresen, Satoshi Nakamoto, Greg Maxwell, Matt Corallo, Alex Marcos, Peter Todd, Vladimir and many others.
It just isn’t accurate or fair to put all people in the same category.
What happens if we do start holding individual people accountable for their actions?
Well, for one thing, it makes it a lot harder to argue against broad ideas such as “core believes X” or “core failed to X”.
If someone claims that the “Dragon’s Den” is some sort of effort by “core”, then the first question should be “Who specifically do you mean by “core””? As far as I can tell the only contributor to the core software project was active in that particular channel is the moderator.
In fact, it does not seem likely that even more than a couple other actual core developers ever even visited the channel – – let alone used it or engaged in any sort of organized trolling behavior from it. How many core devs total on the high end even visited? Five?
So instead of saying "Dragons Den is a core project to organize trolling" why don't we say "these five people organize trolling"? Well, because it's too damn hard. It's EASY to blame some nameless faceless group, but when you name specific people you usually have to back it up better, so those five people accused would (rightfully) respond "Huh? What evidence do you have of this?"
Bram Cohen was caught in this exact situation. Just by being in this now infamous chat channel it was assumed he was a participant in trolling. Why? Because a guy said that the channel exists for trolling
If someone has visions of Vladimir or Greg Maxwell sitting around this particular Slack channel planning troll campaigns – – the facts and evidence simply don’t show this to be reflective of reality.
So what should we do next?
This argument isn’t going to be solved by one post.
But what we can all do is work together to discuss things in his fair and accurate of a way as possible.
This means holding actual people responsible for actual actions they do. If you don't like the core roadmap, debate it with Nullc, if you don't agree with the people who signed it, take it up with them. If you don't think the peer review process is fair and objective, contribute technically to the discussion. If you don't like the "Dragons Den" then take it up with specific people. What this really ends up looking like is that instead of being able to say "Dragons Den is a massive troll army run by core" it ends up more like "BTCDrak and MrHodl and Alp are in a channel and I don't like what they tweeted". That second statement doesn't have the bite of the first....but it's true.
Working for better standards also means we should really avoid claims about either "side" unless they are backed by evidence and relevant to the discussion.
In fact, we shouldn’t even be having “sides” at all.
We are here to change the world. No one likes the bickering. Many don't participate...but almost all of us support it at some point. Whether it's up-voting a divisive post, sharing a meme attacking the other guys or using terms designed to place people in camps, we contribute even when we don't mean to.
What would happen if we all decided to no longer participate in division? What if we down voted every comment that attacks individuals or which is divisive and we upvoted everything positive?
What if we kept scientific debate more scientific?
Every piece of data and information in this discussion should be analyzed independently. Independent of the source ended up dependent of what our own motivations or narrative might be.
Anytime we engage in using terms designed to “beat” the other side red division, we don’t win paragraph we win and Bitcoin wins by us all working together to be as accurate and fair as possible.
submitted by bruce_fenton to btc [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc posts from 2019-05-28 to 2019-06-07 10:40 PDT

Period: 10.34 days
Submissions Comments
Total 850 14116
Rate (per day) 82.22 1245.55
Unique Redditors 440 1828
Combined Score 26564 50495

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3690 points, 33 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Brains..... (420 points, 94 comments)
    2. The first trade has already happened on Local.bitcoin.com! (193 points, 67 comments)
    3. China is already leading the way with the most trades done on local.bitcoin.com, followed by India. We really are helping free the world! (192 points, 58 comments)
    4. More than 100 BCH has been raised in just a few days to help support BCH protocol development! (180 points, 63 comments)
    5. The Bitcoin Cash Protocol Development Fund has already raised more than 10% of its goal from 467 separate transactions!!! (180 points, 58 comments)
    6. Local.bitcoin.com (159 points, 80 comments)
    7. The BCH miners are good guy heroes! (152 points, 161 comments)
    8. The Bitcoin.com YouTube channel just pased 25K subscribers (147 points, 19 comments)
    9. Ways to trigger a BTC maximalist: Remind them that because they didn't increase the block size, fees will eventually climb to dumb levels again. This will put brakes on it's bull trend, and funnel cash into alts instead. (141 points, 107 comments)
    10. Why more and more people are switching from BTC to BCH (137 points, 193 comments)
  2. 1561 points, 20 submissions: money78
    1. "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow." (261 points, 131 comments)
    2. Jonathan Toomim: "At 32 MB, we can handle something like 30% of Venezuela's population using BCH 2x per day. Even if that's all BCH ever achieved, I'd call that a resounding success; that's 9 million people raised out of poverty. Not a bad accomplishment for a hundred thousand internet geeks." (253 points, 180 comments)
    3. CEO of CoinEx: "CoinEx already add SLP token solution support. The first SLP token will list on CoinEx Soon. Also welcome apply to list SLP tokens on CoinEx." (138 points, 18 comments)
    4. "While Ethereum smart contracts have a lot more functionality than those in Bitcoin Cash, with the upcoming CashScript we've tried to replicate a big part of the workflow, hopefully making it easier for developers to engage with both of these communities. Check it out 🚀" (120 points, 35 comments)
    5. Bitcoin ABC 0.19.7 is now available! This release includes RPC and wallet improvements, and a new transaction index database. See the release notes for details. (104 points, 5 comments)
    6. Vin Armani: "Huge shout out to the @BitcoinCom wallet team! I just heard from a very authoritative source that multi-output BIP 70 support has been successfully tested and will be in a near-term future release. Now, the most popular BCH wallet will support Non-Custodial Financial Services!" (88 points, 23 comments)
    7. BSV folks: Anything legal is good...We want our coin to be legal! (79 points, 66 comments)
    8. BCH fees vs BTC fees (78 points, 85 comments)
    9. "This @CashShuffle on BCH looks awesome. The larger blocksize on BCH allows for cheap on-chain transactions. @CashShuffle leverages this in a very creative way to gain privacy. Ignoring the tribalism, it's fascinating to watch BCH vs. BTC compete in the marketplace." (77 points, 3 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Cash the best that bitcoin can be...🔥💪 (60 points, 9 comments)
  3. 1413 points, 18 submissions: Egon_1
    1. "The claim “Bitcoin was purpose-built to first be a Store of Value” is false. In this article I've posting every single instance I could find across everything Satoshi ever wrote related to store of value or payments. It wasn't even close. Payments win." (299 points, 82 comments)
    2. The Art of Rewriting History ... File this under Deception! (184 points, 69 comments)
    3. Today's Next Block Fee: BTC ($3.55) and BCH ($0.00). Enjoy! (120 points, 101 comments)
    4. Andreas Brekken: "The maxi thought leaders have a ⚡in their username but can't describe a bidirectional payment channel. Ask questions? They attack you until you submit or leave. Leave? You're a scammer....." (115 points, 11 comments)
    5. Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]" (107 points, 95 comments)
    6. This Week in Bitcoin Cash (96 points, 10 comments)
    7. “There was no way to win that debate. Roger came armed with too much logic and facts.” (78 points, 1 comment)
    8. BTC supporter enters a coffee shop: "I like to pay $3 premium security fee for my $4 coffee ☕️" (64 points, 100 comments)
    9. Matt Corallo: "... the worst parts of Bitcoin culture reliably come from folks like @Excellion and a few of the folks he has hired at @Blockstream ..." (63 points, 43 comments)
    10. Angela Walch: "Is there a resource that keeps an up-to-date list of those who have commit access to the Bitcoin Core Github repo & who pays them for their work on Bitcoin? In the past, getting this info has required digging. Is that still the case? " (57 points, 5 comments)
  4. 852 points, 11 submissions: jessquit
    1. PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 193 comments)
    2. Nobody uses Bitcoin Cash (178 points, 89 comments)
    3. Yes, Bitcoin was always supposed to be gold 2.0: digital gold that you could use like cash, so you could spend it anywhere without needing banks and gold notes to make it useful. So why is Core trying to turn it back into gold 1.0? (112 points, 85 comments)
    4. This interesting conversation between Jonathan Toomim and @_drgo where jtoomim explains how large blocks actually aren't a centralization driver (89 points, 36 comments)
    5. This Twitter conversation between Jonathan Toomim and Adam Back is worth a read (75 points, 15 comments)
    6. In October 2010 Satoshi proposed a hard fork block size upgrade. This proposed upgrade was a fundamental factor in many people's decision to invest, myself included. BCH implemented this upgrade. BTC did not. (74 points, 41 comments)
    7. what do the following have in common: Australia, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Liberia, Namibia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Caribbean Netherlands, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Zimbabwe (47 points, 20 comments)
    8. Core myth dispelled: how Bitcoin offers sovereignty (45 points, 65 comments)
    9. Satoshi's Speedbump: how Bitcoin's goldlike scarcity helps address scaling worries (25 points, 9 comments)
    10. Greater Fool Theory (14 points, 13 comments)
  5. 795 points, 7 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Erik Voorhees on Twitter: “I wonder if you realize that if Bitcoin didn’t work well as a payment system in the early days it likely would not have taken off. Many (most?) people found the concept of instant borderless payments captivating and inspiring. “Just hold this stuff” not sufficient.” (297 points, 68 comments)
    2. On Twitter: “PSA: The Lightning Network is being heavily data mined right now. Opening channels allows anyone to cluster your wallet and associate your keys with your IP address.” (226 points, 102 comments)
    3. Shocking (not): Blockstream has had a hard time getting business due to their very bad reputation (73 points, 25 comments)
    4. While @PeterMcCormack experiments with his #LightningNetwork bank, waiting over 20 seconds to make a payment, real P2P #Bitcoin payments have already arrived on #BitcoinCash. (66 points, 94 comments)
    5. This is what we’re up against. Mindless sheep being brain washed and pumping Bitcoin (BTC) as gold to try to make a buck. (56 points, 29 comments)
    6. Tuur Demeester: “At full maturity, using the Bitcoin blockchain will be as rare and specialized as chartering an oil tanker.” (54 points, 61 comments)
    7. ‪Bitcoin Cash 101: What Happens When We Decentralize Money? ‬ (23 points, 2 comments)
  6. 720 points, 2 submissions: InMyDayTVwasBooks
    1. A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google. (619 points, 214 comments)
    2. 15 Years Ago VS. Today: How Tech Scales (101 points, 53 comments)
  7. 485 points, 15 submissions: JonyRotten
    1. Cashscript Is Coming, Bringing Ethereum-Like Smart Contracts to Bitcoin Cash (96 points, 6 comments)
    2. Localbitcoins Removes In-Person Cash Trades Forcing Traders to Look Elsewhere (86 points, 26 comments)
    3. Bitcoin.com's Local Bitcoin Cash Marketplace Is Now Open for Trading (48 points, 22 comments)
    4. Report Insists 'Bitcoin Was Not Purpose-Built to First Be a Store of Value' (48 points, 8 comments)
    5. BCH Businesses Launch Development Fund for Bitcoin Cash (36 points, 1 comment)
    6. Another Aspiring Satoshi Copyrights the Bitcoin Whitepaper (31 points, 0 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash and SLP-Fueled Badger Wallet Launches for iOS (27 points, 0 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Mining With Solar: Less Risky and More Profitable Than Selling to the Grid (26 points, 0 comments)
    9. Former Mt Gox CEO Mark Karpeles Announces New Blockchain Startup (25 points, 25 comments)
    10. Mixing Service Bitcoin Blender Quits After Bestmixer Takedown (23 points, 7 comments)
  8. 426 points, 2 submissions: btcCore_isnt_Bitcoin
    1. Ponder the power of propaganda, Samson Mow, Adam Back and Greg Maxwell all know how import control of bitcoin is. (394 points, 98 comments)
    2. How many Bitcoin Core supporters does it take to change a light bulb? (32 points, 35 comments)
  9. 369 points, 3 submissions: where-is-satoshi
    1. Currently you must buy 11,450 coffees on a single Lightning channel to match the payment efficiency of Bitcoin BCH - you will also need to open an LN channel with at least $47,866 (230 points, 173 comments)
    2. North Queensland's Beauty Spot finds Bitcoin BCH a thing of beauty (74 points, 6 comments)
    3. Can't start the day without a BCHinno (65 points, 9 comments)
  10. 334 points, 5 submissions: AD1AD
    1. You Can Now Send Bitcoin Cash to Mobile Phones in Electron Cash Using Cointext! (132 points, 32 comments)
    2. Merchants are Dropping Multi-Coin PoS for One Cryptocurrency: Bitcoin Cash (73 points, 21 comments)
    3. A Stellar Animated Video from CoinSpice Explaining how CashShuffle Works Under the Hood! (67 points, 10 comments)
    4. If you haven't seen the "Shit Bitcoin Cash Fanatics Say" videos from Scott Rose (The Inspirational Nerd), YOU NEED TO DO IT NOWWW (50 points, 7 comments)
    5. New Video from Bitcoin Out Loud: "Can You Store Data on the Bitcoin Blockchain?" (Spoiler: Not really.) (12 points, 10 comments)
  11. 332 points, 6 submissions: eyeofpython
    1. I believe the BCH denomination is the best (in contrast to bits, cash and sats), if used with eight digits & spaces: 0.001 234 00 BCH. This way both the BCH and the satoshi amount is immediately clear. Once the value of a satoshi gets close to 1¢, the dot can simply be dropped. (112 points, 41 comments)
    2. Only after writing more BCH Script I realized how insanely usefull all the new opcodes are — CDS and those activated/added back in May '18. Kudos to the developers! (104 points, 22 comments)
    3. CashProof is aready so awesome it can formally prove all optimizations Spedn uses, except one. Great news for BCH smart contracts! (51 points, 6 comments)
    4. Proposal for a new opcode: OP_REVERSE (43 points, 55 comments)
    5. My response on your guy's critisism of OP_REVERSE and the question of why the SLP protocol (and others) don't simply switch to little endian (20 points, 25 comments)
    6. random post about quantum physics (both relevant and irrelevant for Bitcoin at the same time) (2 points, 11 comments)
  12. 322 points, 6 submissions: unitedstatian
    1. BCH is victim to one of the biggest manipulation campaigns in social media: Any mention of BCH triggered users instantly to spam "BCASH".. until BSV which is a BCH fork and almost identical to it pre-November fork popped out of nowhere and suddenly social media is spammed with pro-BSV posts. (131 points, 138 comments)
    2. LocalBitcoins just banned cash. It really only goes to show everything in the BTC ecosystem is compromised. (122 points, 42 comments)
    3. The new narrative of the shills who moved to promoting bsv: Bitcoin was meant to be government-friendly (33 points, 138 comments)
    4. Hearn may have been the only sober guy around (21 points, 29 comments)
    5. PSA: The economical model of the Lightning Network is unsound. The LN will support different coins which will be interconnected and since the LN tokens will be transacted instead of the base coins backing them up their value will be eroded over time. (14 points, 8 comments)
    6. DARPA-Funded Study Looks at How Crypto Chats Spread on Reddit (1 point, 0 comments)
  13. 313 points, 8 submissions: CreativeName44
    1. Venezuela Hidden Bitcoin Cash paper wallet claimed with 0.17468 BCH! Congrats to the one who found it! (80 points, 0 comments)
    2. Alright BCH Redditors, Let's make some HUGE noise!! Announcing The NBA finals Toronto Raptors Hidden BCH Wallet!! (60 points, 9 comments)
    3. FindBitcoinCash gaining traction around the world - Calling out to Bitcoin Cashers to join the fun!! (41 points, 0 comments)
    4. The Toronto Raptors Bitcoin Cash Wallet has been hidden: Address qz72j9e906g7pes769yp8d4ltdmh4ajl9vf76pj0v9 (PLS RT - Some local media tagged on it) (39 points, 0 comments)
    5. This is the next BitcoinCash wallet that is going to be hidden, hopefully REALLY soon! (36 points, 13 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Cash Meetups From Around the World added to FindBitcoinCash (25 points, 0 comments)
    7. FindBitcoinCash Wallets in other languages English/Spanish/Lithuanian/Swedish/Korean (20 points, 18 comments)
    8. Thank you for a great article!! (12 points, 0 comments)
  14. 312 points, 1 submission: scriberrr
    1. WHY? (312 points, 49 comments)
  15. 311 points, 4 submissions: Anenome5
    1. Libertarian sub GoldandBlack is hosting a free, live online workshop about how to setup and use Electron Cash on Sat 1st June via discord, including how to use Cashshuffle, with a Q&A session to follow. All are invited! (119 points, 40 comments)
    2. For anyone who still hasn't seen this, here is Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone presenting their research on how to do 1 gigabyte blocks, all the way back in 2017 at the Scaling Bitcoin Conference. The BTC camp has known we can scale bitcoin on-chain for years, they just don't want to hear it. (92 points, 113 comments)
    3. @ the trolls saying "No one uses Bitcoin Cash", let's look at the last 60 blocks... (72 points, 84 comments)
    4. Research Reveals Feasibility of 1TB Blocks, 7M Transactions per Second (28 points, 22 comments)
  16. 293 points, 2 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. /Bitcoin mods are censoring posts that explain why BitPay has to charge an additional fee when accepting BTC payments (216 points, 110 comments)
    2. Meetups and adoption don't just happen organically, but are the result of the hard work of passionate community members. There are many others out there but these girls deserve some recognition! (77 points, 9 comments)
  17. 282 points, 1 submission: EddieFrmDaBlockchain
    1. LEAKED: Attendee List for Buffet Charity Lunch (282 points, 98 comments)
  18. 273 points, 4 submissions: HostFat
    1. Breakdown of all Satoshi’s Writings Proves Bitcoin not Built Primarily as Store of Value (159 points, 64 comments)
    2. Just to remember - When you are afraid that the market can go against you, use the state force. (48 points, 5 comments)
    3. CypherPoker.JS v0.5.0 - P2P Poker - Bitcoin Cash support added! (35 points, 3 comments)
    4. Feature request as standard for all bch mobile wallets (31 points, 12 comments)
  19. 262 points, 3 submissions: CaptainPatent
    1. Lightning Network capacity takes a sudden dive well below 1k BTC after passing that mark back in March. (97 points, 149 comments)
    2. Yeah, how is it fair that Bitpay is willing to eat a $0.0007 transaction fee and not a $2+ transaction fee?! (89 points, 59 comments)
    3. BTC Fees amplified today by last night's difficulty adjustment. Current (peak of day) next-block fees are testing new highs. (76 points, 59 comments)
  20. 262 points, 1 submission: Badrush
    1. Now I understand why Bitcoin Developers hate on-chain solutions like increasing block sizes. (262 points, 100 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (2337 points, 242 comments)
  2. LovelyDay (1191 points, 160 comments)
  3. Ant-n (1062 points, 262 comments)
  4. MemoryDealers (977 points, 62 comments)
  5. jtoomim (880 points, 108 comments)
  6. 500239 (841 points, 142 comments)
  7. jonald_fyookball (682 points, 86 comments)
  8. ShadowOfHarbringer (672 points, 110 comments)
  9. money78 (660 points, 41 comments)
  10. playfulexistence (632 points, 76 comments)
  11. Bagatell_ (586 points, 72 comments)
  12. Big_Bubbler (552 points, 196 comments)
  13. homopit (551 points, 79 comments)
  14. Anenome5 (543 points, 130 comments)
  15. WippleDippleDoo (537 points, 111 comments)
  16. MobTwo (530 points, 52 comments)
  17. FalltheBanks3301 (483 points, 87 comments)
  18. btcfork (442 points, 115 comments)
  19. chainxor (428 points, 71 comments)
  20. eyeofpython (425 points, 78 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google. by InMyDayTVwasBooks (619 points, 214 comments)
  2. Brains..... by MemoryDealers (420 points, 94 comments)
  3. Ponder the power of propaganda, Samson Mow, Adam Back and Greg Maxwell all know how import control of bitcoin is. by btcCore_isnt_Bitcoin (394 points, 98 comments)
  4. WHY? by scriberrr (312 points, 49 comments)
  5. "The claim “Bitcoin was purpose-built to first be a Store of Value” is false. In this article I've posting every single instance I could find across everything Satoshi ever wrote related to store of value or payments. It wasn't even close. Payments win." by Egon_1 (299 points, 82 comments)
  6. Erik Voorhees on Twitter: “I wonder if you realize that if Bitcoin didn’t work well as a payment system in the early days it likely would not have taken off. Many (most?) people found the concept of instant borderless payments captivating and inspiring. “Just hold this stuff” not sufficient.” by BitcoinXio (297 points, 68 comments)
  7. LEAKED: Attendee List for Buffet Charity Lunch by EddieFrmDaBlockchain (282 points, 98 comments)
  8. Now I understand why Bitcoin Developers hate on-chain solutions like increasing block sizes. by Badrush (262 points, 100 comments)
  9. "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow." by money78 (261 points, 131 comments)
  10. Jonathan Toomim: "At 32 MB, we can handle something like 30% of Venezuela's population using BCH 2x per day. Even if that's all BCH ever achieved, I'd call that a resounding success; that's 9 million people raised out of poverty. Not a bad accomplishment for a hundred thousand internet geeks." by money78 (253 points, 180 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 109 points: mossmoon's comment in Now I understand why Bitcoin Developers hate on-chain solutions like increasing block sizes.
  2. 104 points: _degenerategambler's comment in Nobody uses Bitcoin Cash
  3. 96 points: FreelanceForCoins's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
  4. 94 points: ThomasZander's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
  5. 91 points: cryptotrillionaire's comment in The Art of Rewriting History ... File this under Deception!
  6. 87 points: tjonak's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
  7. 86 points: money78's comment in Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]"
  8. 83 points: discoltk's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
  9. 79 points: jessquit's comment in Ways to trigger a Shitcoin influencer Part 1: Remind them that’s it’s very likely they got paid to shill fake Bitcoin to Noobs
  10. 78 points: PaladinInc's comment in The BCH miners are good guy heroes!
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

We should let Segwit go through

All in all, it's better than nothing and all eyes are on Blockstream, they won't be able to profit off Bitcoin anyway.

1.

Smarter people than many of us are for Segwit. For example gavinandresen - Gavin Andresen.
Or shea256 - Ryan Shea, which I quote here:
A few facts on the core developers:
As for SegWit, it is a multi-faceted gold-mine of an update with many, many benefits to scaling, security and efficiency:
  1. It fixes the substantial transaction malleability problem once and for all.
  2. It improves the efficiency of signature-hashing so it scales linearly rather than quadratically.
  3. It 1.7x's the # of single-signature transactions per block and 4x's the # of multi-signature transactions per block.
  4. It enables second-layer scaling solutions like Lightning.
  5. It upgrades pay-to-script-hash transactions from 160-bit hashes to 256-bit hashes.
  6. It makes it safer for hardware wallets to sign transactions by explicitly hashing input values.
  7. It reduces the growth of the system's most burdensome resource: unspent transaction outputs, which are ideally kept in memory.
  8. It introduces versioning for the scripting language to allow for more easy upgradeability.

2.

The trust in the BU development team has faded [1] [2] [3]. (It's more legit if it looks as if it has sources. You know what I'm talking about... the bugs that have been found, the fact that it can't keep up with Core's commits, the fact that Core developers aren't jumping ship to it, the fact that it looks less active even compared to Classic - which has a smaller "market share").

3.

The trust in the reasons for which some miners were supporting BU has faded [1] [2]. I'm guessing that we were all hoping that they hate censorship and manipulation, just like we do, but for Jihan for example - the reasons might be different. I first became suspicious of it when he shared MR_hehe's post, saying this:
If 2nd layer protocols become a reality, many bitcoin transactions will go through 2nd layer networks and not via miners. Miners won't receive transaction fees for them. The mining community obviously feel unhappy about this.
But now we have the bigger sign (quote AgentME):
The covert form of ASICBOOST (where they don't use the version field, the form that was only recently publicly discovered) would only show up as a higher than usual number of empty blocks or blocks with reordered or missing transactions (depending on how the attacker implemented it; it's not necessarily both).
IMO, the long term objectives should be:
etc.
Note that without utility for people and businesses, Bitcoin is just a complex and very effective pyramid scheme. No wonder you're only allowed to post "BUY BUY BUY HOLD!!" in /bitcoin.
Also note that DASH is already doing some of the stuff above. Maybe we should just do a Bitcoin genesis block with DASH's source code lol.
There's little financial interest in my recommendation, as I've already sold most of my Bitcoins for ETH. I'm sure many others from /btc have done the same. But I still want most cryptocurrencies to succeed, not just the ones I'm "invested" in. I want banks to fail.
EDIT: looking at the comments, some people want hard fork SegWit, others want BU, others want soft fork FlexTrans, others want extension blocks... Really, we can't pull in so many different directions. We'll just move slowly somewhere in between, and in the tech word you remain behind when that happens.
submitted by Nabukadnezar to btc [link] [comments]

The Origins of the Blocksize Debate

On May 4, 2015, Gavin Andresen wrote on his blog:
I was planning to submit a pull request to the 0.11 release of Bitcoin Core that will allow miners to create blocks bigger than one megabyte, starting a little less than a year from now. But this process of peer review turned up a technical issue that needs to get addressed, and I don’t think it can be fixed in time for the first 0.11 release.
I will be writing a series of blog posts, each addressing one argument against raising the maximum block size, or against scheduling a raise right now... please send me an email ([email protected]) if I am missing any arguments
In other words, Gavin proposed a hard fork via a series of blog posts, bypassing all developer communication channels altogether and asking for personal, private emails from anyone interested in discussing the proposal further.
On May 5 (1 day after Gavin submitted his first blog post), Mike Hearn published The capacity cliff on his Medium page. 2 days later, he posted Crash landing. In these posts, he argued:
A common argument for letting Bitcoin blocks fill up is that the outcome won’t be so bad: just a market for fees... this is wrong. I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash.
...a permanent backlog would start to build up... as the backlog grows, nodes will start running out of memory and dying... as Core will accept any transaction that’s valid without any limit a node crash is eventually inevitable.
He also, in the latter article, explained that he disagreed with Satoshi's vision for how Bitcoin would mature[1][2]:
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy.
Gavin continued to publish the series of blog posts he had announced while Hearn made these predictions. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Matt Corallo brought Gavin's proposal up on the bitcoin-dev mailing list after a few days. He wrote:
Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this mailing list in several years as far as I can tell...
So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code simpler).
This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo
Shortly thereafter, Corallo explained further:
The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to continue to run in a decentralized manner.
Tier Nolan considered possible extensions and modifications that might improve Gavin's proposal and argued that soft caps could be used to mitigate against the dangers of a blocksize increase. Tom Harding voiced support for Gavin's proposal
Peter Todd mentioned that a limited blocksize provides the benefit of protecting against the "perverse incentives" behind potential block withholding attacks.
Slush didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and neither did Eric Lombrozo, though Eric was interested in developing hard-fork best practices and wanted to:
explore all the complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a one-off ad-hoc thing.
Matt Whitlock voiced his opinion:
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork... I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
Bryan Bishop strongly opposed Gavin's proposal, and offered a philosophical perspective on the matter:
there has been significant public discussion... about why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the road while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many excellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not referenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but feel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have been ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of discussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other subtle and extremely important technical details that are completely absent from this--and other-- proposals.
Secured decentralization is the most important and most interesting property of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be achieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional technology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical nature of the system we have constructed.
There's no doubt in my mind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the most extreme misunderstandings... for development purposes we must hold ourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes, especially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and economically unsafe.
There are many potential technical solutions for aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny bundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending transactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording every transaction, you could record the start state and the end state, and end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold, without modifying max block size and without potentially compromising secured decentralization.
The MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to measure decentralization and its security.. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial because we would have a more academic and technical understanding to work with.
Gregory Maxwell echoed and extended that perspective:
When Bitcoin is changed fundamentally, via a hard fork, to have different properties, the change can create winners or losers...
There are non-trivial number of people who hold extremes on any of these general belief patterns; Even among the core developers there is not a consensus on Bitcoin's optimal role in society and the commercial marketplace.
there is a at least a two fold concern on this particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous, decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective scarcity of capacity.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward...
tools like the Lightning network proposal could well allow us to hit a greater spectrum of demands at once--including secure zero-confirmation (something that larger blocksizes reduce if anything), which is important for many applications. With the right technology I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, but there needs to be a reason to build it; the security and decentralization level of Bitcoin imposes a hard upper limit on anything that can be based on it.
Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't possible today
the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk. Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available data and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use of Bitcoin; it's no big deal". Unfortunately, every indicator I can think of except fee totals has been going in the wrong direction almost monotonically along with the blockchain size increase since 2012 when we started hitting full blocks and responded by increasing the default soft target. This is frustrating
many people--myself included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin Core to increase the scalability. This work isn't small-potatoes boring software engineering stuff; I mean even my personal contributions include things like inventing a wholly new generic algebraic optimization applicable to all EC signature schemes that increases performance by 4%, and that is before getting into the R&D stuff that hasn't really borne fruit yet, like fraud proofs. Today Bitcoin Core is easily >100 times faster to synchronize and relay than when I first got involved on the same hardware, but these improvements have been swallowed by the growth. The ironic thing is that our frantic efforts to keep ahead and not lose decentralization have both not been enough (by the best measures, full node usage is the lowest its been since 2011 even though the user base is huge now) and yet also so much that people could seriously talk about increasing the block size to something gigantic like 20MB. This sounds less reasonable when you realize that even at 1MB we'd likely have a smoking hole in the ground if not for existing enormous efforts to make scaling not come at a loss of decentralization.
Peter Todd also summarized some academic findings on the subject:
In short, without either a fixed blocksize or fixed fee per transaction Bitcoin will will not survive as there is no viable way to pay for PoW security. The latter option - fixed fee per transaction - is non-trivial to implement in a way that's actually meaningful - it's easy to give miners "kickbacks" - leaving us with a fixed blocksize.
Even a relatively small increase to 20MB will greatly reduce the number of people who can participate fully in Bitcoin, creating an environment where the next increase requires the consent of an even smaller portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Where does that stop? What's the proposed mechanism that'll create an incentive and social consensus to not just 'kick the can down the road'(3) and further centralize but actually scale up Bitcoin the hard way?
Some developers (e.g. Aaron Voisine) voiced support for Gavin's proposal which repeated Mike Hearn's "crash landing" arguments.
Pieter Wuille said:
I am - in general - in favor of increasing the size blocks...
Controversial hard forks. I hope the mailing list here today already proves it is a controversial issue. Independent of personal opinions pro or against, I don't think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in nature. Either the result is effectively a fork, and pre-existing coins can be spent once on both sides (effectively failing Bitcoin's primary purpose), or the result is one side forced to upgrade to something they dislike - effectively giving a power to developers they should never have. Quoting someone: "I did not sign up to be part of a central banker's committee".
The reason for increasing is "need". If "we need more space in blocks" is the reason to do an upgrade, it won't stop after 20 MB. There is nothing fundamental possible with 20 MB blocks that isn't with 1 MB blocks.
Misrepresentation of the trade-offs. You can argue all you want that none of the effects of larger blocks are particularly damaging, so everything is fine. They will damage something (see below for details), and we should analyze these effects, and be honest about them, and present them as a trade-off made we choose to make to scale the system better. If you just ask people if they want more transactions, of course you'll hear yes. If you ask people if they want to pay less taxes, I'm sure the vast majority will agree as well.
Miner centralization. There is currently, as far as I know, no technology that can relay and validate 20 MB blocks across the planet, in a manner fast enough to avoid very significant costs to mining. There is work in progress on this (including Gavin's IBLT-based relay, or Greg's block network coding), but I don't think we should be basing the future of the economics of the system on undemonstrated ideas. Without those (or even with), the result may be that miners self-limit the size of their blocks to propagate faster, but if this happens, larger, better-connected, and more centrally-located groups of miners gain a competitive advantage by being able to produce larger blocks. I would like to point out that there is nothing evil about this - a simple feedback to determine an optimal block size for an individual miner will result in larger blocks for better connected hash power. If we do not want miners to have this ability, "we" (as in: those using full nodes) should demand limitations that prevent it. One such limitation is a block size limit (whatever it is).
Ability to use a full node.
Skewed incentives for improvements... without actual pressure to work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while - while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on the entire ecosystem.
Fees and long-term incentives.
I don't think 1 MB is optimal. Block size is a compromise between scalability of transactions and verifiability of the system. A system with 10 transactions per day that is verifiable by a pocket calculator is not useful, as it would only serve a few large bank's settlements. A system which can deal with every coffee bought on the planet, but requires a Google-scale data center to verify is also not useful, as it would be trivially out-competed by a VISA-like design. The usefulness needs in a balance, and there is no optimal choice for everyone. We can choose where that balance lies, but we must accept that this is done as a trade-off, and that that trade-off will have costs such as hardware costs, decreasing anonymity, less independence, smaller target audience for people able to fully validate, ...
Choose wisely.
Mike Hearn responded:
this list is not a good place for making progress or reaching decisions.
if Bitcoin continues on its current growth trends it will run out of capacity, almost certainly by some time next year. What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the available time window.
I no longer believe this community can reach consensus on anything protocol related.
When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be fee pressure that funds mining
What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing.
Peter Todd then pointed out that, contrary to Mike's claims, developer consensus had been achieved within Core plenty of times recently. Btc-drak asked Mike to "explain where the 12 months timeframe comes from?"
Jorge Timón wrote an incredibly prescient reply to Mike:
We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals already. I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there should be consensus about them. If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm ears. I just hope that by "What we need to see right now is leadership" you don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
Oh, so your answer to "bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees and we would like to know more about how it will look like then" it's "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the future so let's just worry about the present". I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a similar situation to be able to predict that future better. What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
this is my plan: we wait 12 months... and start having full blocks and people having to wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times. That would be the beginning of a true "fee market", something that Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening). Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage. What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and obvious. I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon. But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.
Some suspected Gavin/Mike were trying to rush the hard fork for personal reasons.
Mike Hearn's response was to demand a "leader" who could unilaterally steer the Bitcoin project and make decisions unchecked:
No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadership
I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size limit... I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment...
we need to hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say around here.
Jorge Timón responded:
it is true that "universally uncontroversial" (which is what I think the requirement should be for hard forks) is a vague qualifier that's not formally defined anywhere. I guess we should only consider rational arguments. You cannot just nack something without further explanation. If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your nack because it makes no sense". In the same way, when people use fallacies (purposely or not) we must expose that and say "this fallacy doesn't count as an argument". But yeah, it would probably be good to define better what constitutes a "sensible objection" or something. That doesn't seem simple though.
it seems that some people would like to see that happening before the subsidies are low (not necessarily null), while other people are fine waiting for that but don't want to ever be close to the scale limits anytime soon. I would also like to know for how long we need to prioritize short term adoption in this way. As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the most important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa. But yeah, this is progress, I'll wait for your more detailed description of the tragedies that will follow hitting the block limits, assuming for now that it will happen in 12 months. My previous answer to the nervous "we will hit the block limits in 12 months if we don't do anything" was "not sure about 12 months, but whatever, great, I'm waiting for that to observe how fees get affected". But it should have been a question "what's wrong with hitting the block limits in 12 months?"
Mike Hearn again asserted the need for a leader:
There must be a single decision maker for any given codebase.
Bryan Bishop attempted to explain why this did not make sense with git architecture.
Finally, Gavin announced his intent to merge the patch into Bitcoin XT to bypass the peer review he had received on the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

Matt Corallo on How Bitcoin Works - YouTube Matt Corallo - Better Hashing Through BetterHash - YouTube How Mining Pools Work with Matt Corallo - YouTube Fungibility Overview by Adam Back and Matt Corallo (Scaling Bitcoin Milan 2016) How to mine bitcoins? What is Cryptomining? solo mining -pool Mining EXPLAINED! #AXT

Early Bitcoin Core developer Matt Corallo started working on Bitcoin in 2011. At that time he still attended high school and lived in Germany near Frankfurt am Main. He was a cofounder of Blockstream before he started working on open source projects for Bitcoin at Chaincode Labs in New York. We discuss many different topics, ranging from his interest in Bitcoin at the beginning, to current ... Matt Corallo is al lange tijd bitcoin-ontwikkelaar en heeft al veel bijgedragen aan de verbetering van het bitcoinnetwerk. Het voorstel van Corallo scheidt het aanmaken van het nieuwgevonden block van de betaling van de beloning. Het voorstel wordt door velen aangehaald is zeer belangrijke innovatie, maar is tevens grotendeels onopgemerkt gegaan. Het duidelijke voordeel dat behaald wordt met ... During an interview on Peter McCormack’s What Bitcoin Did podcast, Chaincode Labs developer and Bitcoin Core contributor Matt Corallo, who authored the BetterHash protocol, discussed the problems with mining centralization, how BetterHash can help, and the issues around getting people to actually use this improvement. Corallo's relay network serves two distinct purposes. First, it adds diversity to Bitcoin. Rather than just needing to rely on the peer-to-peer network, Bitcoin users can opt to receive transaction data and blocks through an alternative channel. This makes it harder to successfully attack the Bitcoin network; the relay network functions as a fallback. In this special edition of Tales from the Crypt, Marty sits down with Matt Corallo to discuss CVE-2018-17144, the bug found in Bitcoin last week, and his efforts with the Betterhash mining pool protocol. This is a quick 15-minute conversation that touches on a lot. During the last 2/3 of the episode, Marty sits down with Hasufly, a budding star in the world of Bitcoin content to discuss the ...

[index] [42059] [20196] [45848] [25309] [7533] [35673] [9508] [16313] [41486] [37803]

Matt Corallo on How Bitcoin Works - YouTube

How Mining Pools Work with Matt Corallo - Duration: 56:11. Off Chain with Jimmy Song 5,406 views. 56:11 . What is a VPN? - Gary explains - Duration: 13:09. Android Authority Recommended for you ... Matt is a long-time Bitcoin developer who has been working on pioneering sidechain and Bitcoin extensibility technology since its inception. He has actively contributed to Bitcoin Core and its ... This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Core Developer Matt Corallo joins us to discuss his newest project: BetterHash https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/master/bip-XXXX.mediawiki https://lis... Talk by Matt Corallo, Engineer at Chaincode Labs about Decentralized Mining Pools for Bitcoin at MCC 2019 on Saturday, May 11th in New York.

#