Bitcoin’s lead developer quits, says the digital currency ...

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

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

An incomplete history of the Bitcoin Cash's origin and the Minimum Viable Fork project

A common meme is that Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and Craig Wright are the ones responsible for the creation of Bitcoin Cash.
This is untrue. Those are figureheads who played a role in popularizing or (for Bitmain, allegedly) funding later development, but they played almost no part until Bitcoin Cash development was long since underway.
The Bitmain UAHF contingency plan blog post was made on 2017-06-14. This was the first event in Bitcoin Cash's history that reached a wide audience, but it came 15 months after work on what later became Bitcoin Cash began. The public decision to do a minority hard fork happened 2016-07-31, and was spearheaded by singularity87 and ftrader. ftrader did most of the initial development, which he had started back in March 2016. Even back then, the plan to fork before Segwit's activation was clear:
I want to fork before SegWit activates
Bitmain was merely joining their effort in 2017, not starting it.
Bitcoin Cash evolved out of the Minimum Viable Fork project that ftradeFreetrader started in March 2016, and which was discussed in /btcfork and /btc. Freetrader blogged about it quite a bit. If you read through his posts, you can see his initial prototype was built on Bitcoin Classic. In Oct 2016, a MVF version based on Bitcoin Core was made. Development on MVF stalled during the latter half of 2016 when it seemed like Bitcoin Unlimited's emergent consensus proposal was likely to gain adoption, but heated up again in early 2017 when BU lost support after a few remote crash 0-day exploits were found and used against BU on March 15 and again in April. Freetrader restarted his MVF work on Bitcoin Unlimited in April. The first mention of Bitcoin ABC is from May 7, 2017. The ABC project was started by deadalnix, but with mostly the same goal as ftrader's work using Core as the base instead of BU or Classic. At that time, ABC was just Core 0.14 minus RBF and Segwit; it didn't yet have any blocksize changes. Deadalnix reached out to Freetrader and asked him if he wanted to help, which Freetrader did. Freetrader made the first prototype of Bitcoin ABC with a blocksize limit other than 1 MB on or before May 21, 2017, while still working in parallel on the Bitcoin Unlimited version of the MVF. Ftrader and deadalnix continued to work on Bitcoin ABC for a couple months before Bitmain even mentioned their support for the contingency plan, and their contingency plan was basically the same as what ftrader and singularity87 had proposed back in June 2016 (but with more refinements and details worked out) -- perform a minority hard fork from BTC before Segwit activates to increase the blocksize limit, and do so in a way that ensures as clean a split as possible.
Bitcoin ABC was announced to the public on July 1st, 2017, by ftrader and by deadalnix, about 2-3 months after deadalnix and ftrader began working on it, and 2 weeks after Bitmain announced its intent to support the UAHF.
On the date that BCH forked, there were four separate compatible full-node clients:
  1. Bitcoin ABC, developed mostly by Amaury Sechet/deadalnix and freetrader;
  2. Bitcoin Unlimited, developed by the BU team (Andrew Stone/thezerg, Peter Tchipper, Andrea Suisani/sickpig, Peter Rizun, freetrader, and a few others, and funded by anonymous donors in 2016 for their Emergent Consensus proposal);
  3. Bitcoin Classic, originally developed by Gavin Andresen with a little help from me, but extensively reworked by Tom Zander; and
  4. Bitcoin XT, developed initially by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and later by Tom Harding/dgenr8 and dagurval
Of those developers, the only ones who received money while they were working on these clients were possibly deadalnix (alleged but unconfirmed to be paid by Bitmain), and Gavin (MIT Digital Currency Initiative). Everybody else was a volunteer. At the time, BU's funds only paid for conferences, travel expenses, and a $20,000 bug bounty; BU didn't start paying its developers until after the BCH hard fork.
A lot of Bitcoin Cash's early support came from Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. ViaBTC's exchange was the first to offer BCH trading pairs, and ViaBTC's pool was the first public pool to support BCH. I've also heard that Haipo Yang was the one who coined the name Bitcoin Cash -- can anyone confirm or deny this? ViaBTC played a significant role in BCH's deployment, far more than Roger Ver or Craig Wright, and had a comparable amount of influence to Bitmain. However, this was not obvious on the outside, because Haipo Yang is the kind of person who quietly builds things that work, instead of just being a prominent talking head like Craig Wright and Roger Ver are.
Roger himself actually didn't fully support Bitcoin Cash until after the fork. Initially, he had his hopes up for Segwit2x, as did I. His name was conspicuously missing in an Aug 1, 2017 article about who supports Bitcoin Cash. It was only after Segwit2x failed on Nov 8, 2017 that he started to support BCH.
Craig Wright on the other hand did praise the Bitcoin Cash initiative early on, probably largely because he hated Segwit for some reason. But he didn't do anything to help create BCH; he only spoke in favor of it. (I really wish he hadn't. His involvement in BCH fostered a lot of false beliefs among Bitcoin Cash's userbase, like the belief that selfish mining doesn't exist. We were only able to get rid of his crazed followers when BSV forked off. I'm very grateful that happened. But I digress.) Most people didn't take him seriously, but a modest minority bought his narrative hard. He was a pretty minor player at the time, and remained so until 2018.
These are the people who created Bitcoin Cash. It's easy to place all the credit/blame on the most vocal figureheads, but the marketing department does not create the product; they just sell it. If you weren't around during the product's development, it's hard to know who actually built the thing and who was just a bandwagon joiner. CSW and Roger just hopped on the bandwagon. Jihan Wu/Bitmain and Haipo Yang/ViaBTC joined the crew of the bandwagon and contributed substantially to its development and survival, but by the time they had joined the bandwagon was already in motion. The real instigators were the community members like ftrader, deadalnix, singularity87, the BU crew, the Electron Cash crew (Calin Culianu, kyuupichan, Jonald Fyookball, etc.) and the many others who contributed in various ways that I haven't documented.
For those of you who played a role or know of someone else who did but whom I didn't mention in this post, please make a comment below so we can all hear about it.
submitted by jtoomim to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

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

Top Commenters

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

Top Submissions

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

Top Comments

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

The /r/btc China Dispatch: Episode 1 - China Reacts to Hearn’s Rage Quit

Hello, fellow /bitcoin refugees! The thought recently occurred to me that the transition from North Korea to our new uncensored home here might be helped if more original content was published to this sub. As I am a translator by trade, it seems like the best way for me to contribute on an individual level is to provide the English-speaking community here with a window into how the Chinese-speaking bitcoin community thinks about bitcoin and the issues facing bitcoin today. I believe that it is more important now than ever to bridge the cultural and linguistic gaps in this space so that more minds can have access to all available information and work on the most important problems facing the community together.
Therefore, I have decided to commit a small amount of time every day for the next week to translating a Chinese discussion thread or news article into English. My hope is that you guys will find these translations interesting and informative and if the response this week is generally positive, I may consider making this into a regular project.
So, without further ado: here is a thread from the Chinese bitcoin forum 8btc.com regarding Mike Hearn’s recent decision to throw in the towel on bitcoin. The original thread can be viewed here: http://8btc.com/thread-27998-1-1.html)
[OP]
Title: The Bitcoin Experiment Has Failed: Time to Sell Your Holdings and Pack it in Folks
Posted by 英年早睡
I’ve spent more than 5 years being a Bitcoin developer. The software I’ve written has been used by millions of users, hundreds of developers, and the talks I’ve given have led directly to the creation of several startups. I’ve talked about Bitcoin on Sky TV and BBC News. I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. I have explained Bitcoin to the SEC, to bankers and to ordinary people I met at cafes.
From the start, I’ve always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an experiment and like all experiments, it can fail. So don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose. I’ve said this in interviews, on stage at conferences, and over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik.
But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins.
http://www.8btc.com/mike-hearn-bitcoin
Well it looks like one of the big gods has spoken. What are you guys still holding out for?
[Response 1]
Posted by 胡老头
Back in 2013 there was a developer who gave up on bitcoin, and what happened after that? This is nothing but a personal miscalculation. I don’t care whether it’s a developer or even Satoshi himself saying that a decentralized system like bitcoin has failed - it’s equally meaningless and doesn’t do anything to change the general trend of robust development.
[Response 2]
Posted by ls-a
This Mike Hearn is the guy who was promoting XT, right? Just because XT has failed doesn’t mean that bitcoin has failed.
[Response 3]
Posted by 秦的爱恋
Just because bitcoin has failed doesn’t mean that cryptocurrency has failed.
[Response 4]
Posted by yuli7376
The future success or failure of bitcoin is not something that can be decided by a single person. Even if the entire development team quit there will always be new people who will take the reigns and continue development.
[Response 5]
Posted by bitea
I guess the foreign [Western] community had a bit of a shock and have started selling? In that case keep it up guys. Makes it easier for us to accumulate.
[Response 6]
Posted by 玛_雅
This Mike Hearn is the guy who was promoting XT, right? Just because XT has failed doesn’t mean that bitcoin has failed.
His decision “not to continue participating in the development of bitcoin” may be due to the fact that the community saw that he put forward the radical proposal known as XT and expelled him since he was not suited to core development. In truth, he didn’t exit core development, but was kicked out. Now with this announcement he’s trying to make it out like he’s the one quitting as a way to save face.
Given that he tried to promote the 8MB solution in XT, it’s clear that he’s not a “big god,” but more like just a “big cow” [translator’s note: in Chinese netspeak, “big cow” can be used to refer to someone of talent, but the word is a significant step below “big god”]. There is a greater security risk with 8MB. The real big god is the guy who proposed the “segregated witness” soft fork.
[Response 7]
Posted by 大绅士奇奇怪
I looks to me like he’s pissed off because of the lack of support for XT. At the current stage the vast majority of people who accept bitcoin are fairly radical. Yet this big god complains in his essay that other people are too conservative! He’s gotta be off his meds. Also, this big god seems to really like to talk smack about China’s internet, but he doesn’t do anything except complain. His attitude is really not what you would expect from someone of his caliber.
[Reponse 8]
Posted by vatten
Any time that money is involved any kind of radical proposal is going to be rejected. It’s the same reason why the US Fed can only move interest rates 0.25% at a time.
[Response 9]
Posted by yuxuan
If you don’t want to play, just leave quietly.
That’s all for now folks. Will be back with another installment tomorrow.
Edit + 4 hours: Holy shit. Never would have thought there would be so much enthusiasm for this post. Thanks for all the positive feedback. I look forward to continuing this series in the future!
submitted by KoKansei to btc [link] [comments]

Open Letter From a Casual Investor

Dear Bitcoin community (all of it),
I've been investing in Bitcoin since 2012 and have seen many ups and downs over the past 5 years. I was a big believer for a while, I stuck around during the last hardfork, during the Mt. Gox collapse, during the dark days of the Bearwhale, during the Paycoin/GAW scam, after Mike Hearn's rage-quit — point is, I've been around.
Like most people, I have a pretty minimal understanding of the underlying cryptography and code of Bitcoin itself. I'm in this for two reasons:
  1. I like the idea of a currency that is governed by math, not governments.
  2. I have so far made money on it and believe I can make more as the idea takes deeper and deeper root.
Now, here's the thing: Bitcoin is getting harder and harder to use. I can't just send Bitcoins to someone anymore. I've stopped evangelizing about it because I don't want to get embarrassed by a 40-minute transaction and because I don't want to pay a dollar to send a dollar.
I don't care what fixes it. But right now, it's broken as far as the average user concerned.
Segwit, to be honest, sounds like an unnecessarily complex 'solution' that may or may not address the issue. But raising the block size limit (ideally making it dynamic) just sounds like the best, most practical solution to a person like me who does not have the time or inclination to read through scores of scientific whitepapers or scour line after line of code.
My point is this: I'm not buying Bitcoins anymore. In fact, I'm shorting them heavily. Ethereum is the new game in town, and right now, it's on track to win out long term. Because: 1. It's not broken. If I send Ether, it arrives. 2. The fees aren't out of control. A few cents — as it should be. I'm not being punished for actually using the coin. 3. Devs listen to the community. Not the other way around. 4. They had the balls to fork.
The DAO incident and the ensuing debate over Ethereum Classic were settled. The Ethereum blockchain is fine and Ethereum Classic is becoming a footnote for the hardliners to rally around.
So, to the BU/Classic devs, I say the time has come. This has gone on entirely too long. Quit waiting for permission from the Chinese miners. They are after a fee market and will draw it out as long as they can. The first rule of economics: "People will do what they are incentivized to do.".
The power of Bitcoin's persuasion does not lie in its hashing power. It lies in investors and users like me. If we have a useful coin, we will turn it into a profitable coin, which will make it a coin worth mining.
We're not going to settle this with anything other than a fork. "Consensus" will only come when there are actually two options. So, let's do it. Let's take the short term hit to the price by releasing this thing into the wild.
The better coin will win out eventually. Be it Segwit, BU/Classic, or Ethereum, or Monero, or Litecoin, or any other coin out there.
I personally think it may already be too late, but the time has long since come.
Bitcoin must evolve now or die a slow death.
submitted by The_Ugliest_Man_Ever to btc [link] [comments]

Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are Low-Level CopyCats and We Do Support Onchain Scaling

Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc on 2 Dec.
Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling.
We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here.
Let’s see:
Q: How do you comment on BU?
A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad.
Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU.
Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin.
BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong.
(from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ?
Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:)
We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins.
Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions.
Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange.
A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential.
Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork?
I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW.
But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes.
If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals.
Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling.
Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore?
A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all.
For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools.
At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed.
I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB.
For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system.
In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years.
Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html
In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core.
Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing.
Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit?
Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff.
If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin.
Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response.
Activity of BU on GitHub Imgur
Activity of Core Imgur
Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992c https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229
Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future?
Imgur
It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever.
Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can.
Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone.
SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB.
Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/
Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference?
A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC.
Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report?
A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine.
The AMA is conducted in Chinese.
Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English.
To see the original Chinese AMA text,
Please first sign in on news.8btc.com , the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread:
http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html
Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
submitted by 8btccom to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My draft for a new /r/btc FAQ explaining the split from /r/Bitcoin to new users

If /btc is going to actually compete with /Bitcoin, it needs to be just as friendly and informative to new users, especially given its position as the “non default” or “breakaway” sub. The current /btc sticky saying "Welcome to the Wiki" doesn't even have any content in it and I feel this is a bit of a wasted opportunity to create an informative resource that new users will see by default and everyone else can link to instead of retyping things over and over about the history and difference between the subs.
Here's what I've written as a starting point. I've done my best to keep it as concise and relevant as possible but in all honesty it is a complicated issue and a short but effective explanation is basically impossible. I hope the community can expand/improve on it further.
Quick bit about me
I got into Bitcoin in October 2013, when /Bitcoin had around 40k subscribers if I remember correctly, so by now I've actually personally experienced a large portion of Bitcoin's history - including the events preceding and since the creation of this sub. I have been an active and popular poster on /Bitcoin for almost all of that time, until the split and my subsequent banning. With the recent censorship fiasco, I'm finding I have to reiterate the same points over and over again to explain to newer users what happened with the /Bitcoin vs /btc split, questions about hard forks, what is likely to happen in the future and so on. So I put a couple of hours into writing this post to save myself the trouble in future.

/btc FAQ - Historical split from /Bitcoin megathread - v0.1

There is a TL:DR; at the bottom, but it is exactly that. If you skip straight to the TL:DR; then don’t expect sympathy when you post questions that have already been covered in the lengthy and detailed main post.

New to Bitcoin?

I am totally new to Bitcoin. What is it? How does it work? Can/should I mine any? Where can I buy some? How do I get more information?
All of these questions are actually really well covered in the /Bitcoin FAQ. Check it out in a new tab here. Once you've got a bit of a handle on the technology as a whole, come back here for the rest of the story.

History: /btc vs /Bitcoin

What's the difference between /btc and /Bitcoin? What happened to create two such strongly opposed communities? Why can't I discuss /btc in /Bitcoin?
Historically, the /Bitcoin subreddit was the largest and most active forum for discussing Bitcoin. As Bitcoin grew close to a cap in the number of transactions it could process, known as the 1MB block size limit, the community had differing opinions on the best way to proceed. Note that this upcoming issue was anticipated well ahead of time, with Satoshi's chosen successor to lead the project Gavin Andresen posting about it in mid 2015. Originally, there was quite a broad spread of opinions - some people favoured raising the blocksize to various extents, some people favoured implementing a variety of second layer solutions to Bitcoin, probably most people thought both could be a good idea in one form or another.
This topic was unbelievably popular at the time, taking up almost every spot on the front page of /Bitcoin for weeks on end.
Unfortunately, the head moderator of /Bitcoin - theymos - felt strongly enough about the issue to use his influence to manipulate the debate. His support was for the proposal of existing software (called Bitcoin Core) NOT to raise the blocksize limit past 1MB and instead rely totally on second layer solutions - especially one called Segregated Witness (or SegWit). With some incredibly convoluted logic, he decided that any different implementations of Bitcoin that could potentially raise the limit were effectively equivalent to separate cryptocurrencies like Litecoin or Ethereum and thus the block size limit or implement other scaling solutions were off-topic and ban-worthy. At the time the most popular alternative was called Bitcoin XT and was supported by experienced developers Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, who have since both left Bitcoin Core development in frustration at their marginalisation. Theymos claimed that for Bitcoin XT or any other software implementation to be relevant to /Bitcoin required "consensus", which was never well defined, despite it being seemingly impossible for everyone to agree on the merits of a new project if no one was allowed to discuss it in the first place. Anyone who didn't toe the line of his vaguely defined moderation policy was temporarily or permanently banned. There was also manipulation of the community using the following tactics - which can still be seen today:
This created enormous uproar among users, as even many of those in favour of Bitcoin Core thought it was authoritarian to actively suppress this crucial debate. theymos would receive hundreds of downvotes whenever he posted: for example here where he gets -749 for threatening to ban prominent Bitcoin business Coinbase from the subreddit.
In an extraordinary turn of events, Theymos posted a thread which received only 26% upvotes in a sample size of thousands announcing that he did not care if even 90% of users disagreed with his policy, he would not change his opinion or his moderation policy to facilitate the discussion the community wanted to have. His suggested alternative was instead for those users, however many there were, to leave.
Here are Theymos' exact words, as he describes how he intends to continue moderating Bitcoin according to his own personal rules rather than the demands of the vast majority of users, who according to him clearly don't have any "real arguments" or "any brains".
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin , and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
/btc was therefore born in an environment not of voluntary departure but of forced exile.
This forced migration caused two very unfortunate occurrences:
  1. It polarised the debate around Bitcoin scaling. Previously, there was a lot of civil discussion about compromise and people with suggestions from all along the spectrum were working to find the best solution. That was no longer possible when a moderation policy would actively suppress anyone with opinions too different from Theymos. Instead it forced everyone into a "with us or against us" situation, which is why the /btc subreddit has been pushed so far in favour of the idea of a network hard fork (discussed below).
  2. It has distracted Bitcoin from its mission of becoming a useful, global, neutral currency into a war of information. New users often find /Bitcoin and assume it to be the authoritative source of information, only to later discover that a lot of important information or debate has been invisibly removed from their view.
Since then, like any entrenched conflict, things have degenerated somewhat on both sides to name calling and strawman arguments. However, /btc remains committed to permitting free and open debate on all topics and allowing user downvotes to manage any "trolling" (as /Bitcoin used to) instead of automatic shadow-banning or heavy-handed moderator comment deletion (as /Bitcoin does now). Many users in /Bitcoin deny that censorship exists at all (it is difficult to see when anyone pointing out the censorship has their comment automatically hidden by the automoderator) or justify it as necessary removal of "trolls", which at this point now includes thousands upon thousands of current and often long-standing Bitcoin users and community members.
Ongoing censorship is still rampant, partially documented in this post by John Blocke
For another detailed account of this historical sequence of events, see singularity87 s posts here and here.
/btc has a public moderator log as demonstration of its commitment to transparency and the limited use of moderation. /Bitcoin does not.
Why is so much of the discussion in /btc about the censorship in /Bitcoin? Isn't a better solution to create a better community rather than constantly complaining?
There are two answers to this question.
  1. Over time, as /btc grows, conversation will gradually start to incorporate more information about the Bitcoin ecosystem, technology, price etc. Users are encouraged to aid this process by submitting links to relevant articles and up/downvoting on the /new and /rising tab as appropriate. However, /btc was founded effectively as a refuge for confused and angry users banned from /Bitcoin and it still needs to serve that function so at least some discussion of the censorship will probably always persist (unless there is a sudden change of moderation policy in /Bitcoin).
  2. The single largest issue in Bitcoin right now is the current cap on the number of transactions the network can process, known as the blocksize limit. Due to the censorship in /Bitcoin, open debate of the merits of different methods of addressing this problem is impossible. As a result, the censorship of /Bitcoin (historically the most active and important Bitcoin community forum) has become by proxy the single most important topic in Bitcoin, since only by returning to open discussion would there be any hope of reaching agreement on the solution to the block size limit itself. As a topic of such central importance, there is naturally going to be a lot of threads about this until a solution is found. This is simply how Bitcoin works, that at any one time there is one key issue under discussion for lengthy periods of time (previous examples of community "hot topics" include the demise of the original Bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, the rise to a 51% majority hash rate of mining pool GHash.io and the supposed "unveiling" of Bitcoin's anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto).

Bitcoin Network Hard Forks

What is a hard fork? What happens if Bitcoin hard forks?
A network hard fork is when a new block of transactions is published under a new set of rules that only some of the network will accept. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain history of transactions to two separate blockchains of the current state of the network. With any luck, the economic incentive for all users to converge quickly brings everyone together on one side of the fork, but this is not guaranteed especially since there is not a lot of historical precedent for such an event.
A hard fork is necessary to raise the block size limit above its 1MB cap.
Why is /btc generally in favour of a hard fork and /Bitcoin generally against?
According to a lot of users on /Bitcoin - a hard fork can be characterised as an “attack” on the network. The confusion and bad press surrounding a hard fork would likely damage Bitcoin’s price and/or reputation (especially in the short term). They point to the ongoing turmoil with Ethereum as an example of the dangers of a hard fork. Most of /Bitcoin sees the stance of /btc as actively reckless, that pushing for a hard fork creates the following problems:
According to a lot of users on /btc - a hard fork is necessary despite these risks. Most of /btc sees the stance of /Bitcoin as passively reckless, that continuing to limit Bitcoin’s blocksize while remaining inactive creates the following problems:
Bitcoiners are encouraged to examine all of the information and reach their own conclusion. However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is an open-source project founded on the ideal of free market competition (between any/all software projects, currencies, monetary policies, miners, ideas etc.). In one sense, /btc vs /Bitcoin is just another extension of this, although Bitcoiners are also encouraged to keep abreast of the top posts and links on both subreddits. Only those afraid of the truth need to cut off opposing information.
What do Bitcoin developers, businesses, users, miners, nodes etc. think?
Developers
There are developers on both sides of the debate, although it is a common argument in /Bitcoin to claim that the majority supports Bitcoin Core. This is true in the sense that Bitcoin Core is the current default and has 421 listed code contributors but misleading because not only are many of those contributors authors of a single tiny change and nothing else but also many major figures like Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik have left the project while still being counted as historical contributors.
Businesses including exchanges etc.
A definite vote of confidence is not available from the vast majority of Bitcoin businesses, and wouldn't be binding in any case. The smart decision for most businesses is to support both chains in the event of a fork until the network resolves the issue (which may only be a day or two).
Users
Exact user sentiment is impossible to determine, especially given the censorship on /Bitcoin.
Miners and Nodes
Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
What do I do if the network hard forks?* Do we end up with two Bitcoins?
Firstly, in the event of a hard fork there is no need to panic. All Bitcoins are copied to both chains in the case of a split, so any Bitcoins you have are safe. HOWEVER, in the event of a fork there will be some period of confusion where it is important to be very careful about how/why you spend your Bitcoins. Hopefully (and most likely) this would not last long - everyone in Bitcoin is motivated to converge into agreement for everyone's benefit as soon as possible - but it's impossible to say for sure.
There isn't a lot of historical data about cryptocurrency hard forks, but one example is alternative cryptocurrency Ethereum that forked into two coins after the events of the DAO and currently exists as two separate chains, ETH (Ethereum) and ETC (Ethereum Classic).
The Ethereum fork is not a good analogy for Bitcoin because its network difficulty target adjusts every single block, so a massive drop in hash rate does not significantly impede its functioning. Bitcoin’s difficult target adjusts only every 2100 blocks - which under usual circumstances takes two weeks but in the event of a hard fork could be a month or more for the smaller chain. It is almost inconceivable that a minority of miners would willingly spend millions of dollars over a month or more purely on principle to maintain a chain that was less secure and processed transactions far slower than the majority chain - even assuming the Bitcoins on this handicapped chain didn't suffer a market crash to close to worthless.
Secondly, a hard fork is less likely to be a traumatic event than it is often portrayed in /Bitcoin:

What Happens Now

How do I check on the current status of opinion?
Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
Users are also welcome to engage in anecdotal speculation about community opinion based on their impression of the commentary and activity in /btc and /Bitcoin.
Haven't past attempts to raise the blocksize failed?
There is no time limit or statute of limitations on the number of attempts the community can make to increase the block size and scale Bitcoin. Almost any innovation in the history of mankind required several attempts to get working and this is no different.
The initial attempt called Bitcoin XT never got enough support for a fork because key developer Mike Hearn left out of frustration at trying to talk around all the censorship and community blockading.
The second major attempt called Bitcoin Classic gained massive community momentum until it was suddenly halted by the drastic implementation of censorship by Theymos described above.
The most popular attempt at the moment is called Bitcoin Unlimited.
/btc is neutral and welcoming to any and all projects that want to find a solution to scaling Bitcoin - either on-or off-chain. However, many users are suspicious of Bitcoin Core's approach that involves only SegWit, developed by a private corporation called Blockstream and that has already broken its previous promises in a document known as the Hong Kong Agreement to give the network a block size limit raise client along with Segregated Witness (only the latter was delivered) .
What if the stalemate is irreconcilable and nothing ever happens?
Increasing transaction fees and confirmation times are constantly increasing the pressure to find a scaling solution - leading some to believe that further adoption of Bitcoin Unlimited or a successor scaling client will eventually occur. Bitcoin Core's proposed addition of SegWit is struggling to gain significant support and as it is already the default client (and not censored in /Bitcoin) it is unlikely to suddenly grow any further.
If the stalemate is truly irreconcilable, eventually users frustrated by the cost, time and difficulty of Bitcoin will begin migrating to alternative cryptocurrencies. This is obviously not a desirable outcome for long standing Bitcoin supporters and holders, but cannot be ignored as the inevitable free market resort if Bitcoin remains deadlocked for long enough.

TL:DR;

I don’t know anything about Bitcoin. Help me?
What’s the /btc vs /Bitcoin story?
  • Bitcoin is at its transaction capacity and needs to scale to onboard more users
  • The community was discussing different ways to do this until the biased head moderator of /Bitcoin Theymos got involved
  • Theymos, started an authoritarian censorship rampage which culminated in telling 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. /btc is where they went. Here is the thread where it all started. Note the 26% upvoted on the original post, the hundreds of upvotes of community outcry in the comments and the graveyard of [removed] posts further down the chain. Highly recommended reading in its entirety.
  • To this day, /Bitcoin bans all discussion of alternative scaling proposals and /btc
  • Bitcoin is about freedom, and can’t function effectively with either an artificially restricted transaction cap or a main community forum that is so heavily manipulated. This subreddit is the search for solutions to both problems as well as general Bitcoin discussion.
What’s the deal with hard forks?
  • No TL:DR; possible, read the whole post.
What happens now?
  • Node Support Information
  • Miner Support Information
  • Debate continues in /btc, and generally doesn't continue in /Bitcoin - although posts referencing /btc or Bitcoin Unlimited regularly sneak past the moderators because it is such a crucial topic
  • Eventually one side or the other breaks, enough miners/nodes/users get on one side and Bitcoin starts scaling. This may or may not involve a hard fork.
  • If not, fees and average confirmation times continue to rise until users migrate en masse to an altcoin. This is not an imminent danger, as can be seen by the BTC marketcap dominance at its historical levels of 80+% but could change at any time
submitted by Shibinator to btc [link] [comments]

Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are terrible and We Do Support Onchain Scaling

Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc. Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling.
We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here.
Let’s see:
Q: How do you comment on BU?
A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad.
Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU.
Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin.
BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong.
(from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ?
Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:)
We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins.
Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions.
Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange.
A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential.
Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork?
I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW.
But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes.
If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals.
Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling.
Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore?
A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all.
For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools.
At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed.
I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB.
For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system.
In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years.
Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html
In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core.
Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing.
Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit?
Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff.
If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin.
Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response.
Activity of BU on GitHub http://i.imgur.com/ElZ71vv.jpg
Activity of Core GitHub http://i.imgur.com/XbNGUqz.jpg
Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992c https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229
Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future?
http://i.imgur.com/P1duZTn.png
It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever.
Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can.
Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone.
SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB.
Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/
Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference?
A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC.
Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report?
A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine.
The AMA is conducted in Chinese.
Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English.
To see the original Chinese AMA text,
Please first sign in on news.8btc.com, the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread:
http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html
Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
submitted by 8btccom to btc [link] [comments]

It's time for a break: About the recent mess & temporary new rules

Unfortunately, I was on vacation this weekend, so I was unable to prevent /Bitcoin from becoming messy. Sorry about that. I and other moderators more-or-less cleaned it up. Report anything that we missed.
Because people are still probably in a "troll-happy" mood from the lack of moderation, moderation will be increased for a while. Everyone needs some time to calm down. In particular, posts about anything especially emotionally-charged will be deleted unless they introduce some very substantial new ideas about the subject. This includes the max block size debate (any side) and /Bitcoin moderation. Also, people are continuously spamming links to inferior clones of /Bitcoin and the XT subreddit -- these links will be removed and the posters banned unless the links are remarkably appropriate for the given situation. When this sticky is removed, the rules will return to what they were previously.
It is possible that some people have been or will be banned too readily due to the increased moderation. If this happens to you, mail /Bitcoin with a justification of your actions, then wait 2 days and mail again if there's no satisfactory response, then wait 4 days, then 8, 16, 32, etc. If your mail to /Bitcoin is too high-volume, we may block all further mail from you, which will make it impossible for your to appeal your ban.

About XT

/Bitcoin exists to serve Bitcoin. XT will, if/when its hardfork is activated, diverge from Bitcoin and create a separate network/currency. Therefore, it and services that support it should not be allowed on /Bitcoin. In the extremely unlikely event that the vast majority of the Bitcoin economy switches to XT and there is a strong perception that XT is the true Bitcoin, then the situation will flip and we should allow only submissions related to XT. In that case, the definition of "Bitcoin" will have changed. It doesn't make sense to support two incompatible networks/currencies -- there's only one Bitcoin, and /Bitcoin serves only Bitcoin.
If a hardfork has near-unanimous agreement from Bitcoin experts and it's also supported by the vast majority of Bitcoin users and companies, we can predict with high accuracy that this new network/currency will take over the economy and become the new definition of Bitcoin. (Miners don't matter in this, and it's not any sort of vote.) This sort of hardfork can probably be adopted on /Bitcoin as soon as it has been determined that the hardfork is not absolutely against the spirit of Bitcoin (inflating out-of-schedule, for example). For right now, there will always be too much controversy around any hardfork that increases the max block size, but this will probably change as there's more debate and research, and as block space actually becomes more scarce. I could see some kind of increase gaining consensus in as soon as 6 months, though it would have to be much smaller than the increase in XT for ~everyone to agree on it so soon.
There's a substantial difference between discussion of a proposed Bitcoin hardfork (which was previously always allowed here, even though I strongly disagree with many things posted) and promoting software that is programmed to diverge into a competing network/currency. The latter is clearly against the established rules of /Bitcoin, and while Bitcoin's technology will continue working fine no matter what people do, even the attempt at splitting Bitcoin up like this will harm the Bitcoin ecosystem and economy.

Why is XT considered an altcoin even though it hasn't broken away from Bitcoin yet?

Because it is intentionally programmed to diverge from Bitcoin, I don't consider it to be important that XT is not distinct from Bitcoin quite yet. If someone created a fork of Bitcoin Core that allowed miners to continue mining 25 BTC per block forever, would that be "Bitcoin" even though it doesn't split from the Bitcoin currency/network quite yet? (I'd say no.)

Can I still talk about hard fork proposals on /Bitcoin?

Right now, not unless you have something really new and substantial to say.
After this sticky is removed, it will be OK to discuss any hardfork to Bitcoin, but not any software that hardforks without consensus, since that software is not Bitcoin.

If XT is an altcoin then why aren't sidechains or Lightning altcoins?

/Bitcoin is about the Bitcoin currency and network. Lightning allows you to move the Bitcoin currency. Sidechains are on-topic in general because they are a possibly-useful addition to the Bitcoin network. It is possible that some specific sidechains might not be on-topic -- this isn't clear to me yet.
XT is programmed to create a separate currency and network, so it is not Bitcoin.

How do you know that there is no consensus?

Consensus is a high bar. It is not the same as a majority. In general, consensus means that there is near-unanimity. In the very particular case of a hardfork, "consensus" means "there is no noticeable probability that the hardfork will cause the Bitcoin economy to split into two or more non-negligible pieces".
I know almost for certain that there is no consensus to the change in XT because Bitcoin core developers Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it. That's enough to block consensus. And it works both ways: if Gavin and Mike are strongly opposed to Pieter's BIP, then this will also block consensus on that BIP.
Other than the core devs, big Bitcoin companies (especially Coinbase, BitPay, and exchanges) could block consensus, as could large groups of average users who are collectively capable of making reasonable arguments and exerting economic force (probably not just random unknown people complaining about nothing).
Even though consensus is such a high bar, I think that in practice any hardfork that gets consensus among the Bitcoin Core devs and makes it into Bitcoin Core has a good chance of succeeding. But again, the developers would just be spearheading the effort, and many others could block them if necessary.

But with such a high bar, 8 MB blocks will be impossible!

If consensus can never be reached on one particular hardfork proposal, then the hardfork should never occur. Just because you want something doesn't mean that it's ever reasonable for you to hijack Bitcoin from the people who don't want it, even if your side is the majority (which it isn't in this case). This isn't some democratic country where you can always get your way with sufficient politicking. Get consensus, live without the change, or create your own altcoin.
Hard forks are supposed to be hard. While some hard forks will probably be necessary in the long run, these hard forks will need to have consensus and be done properly or Bitcoin will die due to the economy being constantly shattered into several pieces, or as a side-effect of forcing through technically unsound changes that the majority of experts disagree with (like XT's 8MB block size).

Don't most experts want 8 MB blocks soon?

Not by any reasonable idea of "most experts" I can think of. For example, among people with expert flair on /Bitcoin, AFAIK any large near-term increase is opposed by nullc, petertodd, TheBlueMatt, luke-jr, pwuille, adam3us, maaku7, and laanwj. A large near-term increase is supported by gavinandresen, jgarzik, mike_hearn, and MeniRosenfeld. (Those 12 people are everyone with expert flair.)
I've heard concerns that some experts who oppose any large near-term increase have conflicts of interest. But many of them have been expressing the same concerns for years, so it's unlikely that any recent possible conflict of interest is influencing them. Also, if they believed that increasing the max block size would help Bitcoin as a whole, what reason would they have to prevent this? I don't see the incentive.
We don't need to trust the above list of experts, of course. But I for one have found the conservative position's arguments to be much more convincing than the huge-increase position's arguments. It's not reasonable to say, "You know a lot more than I do, and I don't see any fault in your arguments, but you must be trying to trick me due to this potential conflict of interest, so I'm going to ignore you."

Who are you working for?

I am not an employee of anyone but myself. As far as I know my only incentives for engaging in this policy are to make Bitcoin as strong as possible for ideological reasons, and in the long-term to increase the Bitcoin price. When I make policies, I do so because I believe that they are right. I am not being paid for my work on /Bitcoin or for creating certain policies.
It would have been far easier for me to simply allow XT. If I was a politician or a business, I probably would have bowed to community demands already. And on several occasions I have very seriously considered the possibility that I could be wrong here and the community right. But in the end I just don't see any way to both reasonably and consistently deal with XT and cases similar to XT except to ban them on /Bitcoin. Additionally, I am further motivated by my knowledge that a "hostile hardfork" like the one in XT is very harmful for Bitcoin no matter what the change entails, and that the change in XT is in fact amazingly bad.

See also

See my previous posts on this subject and the discussion in their child comments. Keep in mind that my comments are often downvoted to the point of being hidden by default.
Also, someone who could be Satoshi posted here. This email address was actually used by Satoshi before he left, and the email apparently did come from that email address legitimately (not a spoof). Whether he's actually Satoshi or not, I agree with what he's saying.

About majoritarianism

Just because many people want something doesn't make it right. There is example after example of this in history. You might reasonably believe that democracy is the best we can do in government (though I disagree), but it's not the best we can do with private and independent forums on the free market.
If you disagree with /Bitcoin policy, you can do one of these things:
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
The purpose of moderation is to make the community a good one, which sometimes includes causing people to leave.

This thread

You can post comments about moderation policy here, but nowhere else.
submitted by theymos to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

UASF is basically what you would expect to see if Bitcoin were being divided intentionally

I've been involved in Bitcoin for a long time. I know the problem it is trying to solve. And I recognize the hurdles placed in the way of doing so.
One of those hurdles, as we have all seen, is systematic manipulation and censorship. At some point, each of us has noticed that different people in Bitcoin seem to have had different experiences surrounding the same major events, since its creation. Each of us has witnessed the deliberate manipulation, the lies and censorship, that exacerbates this division.
Why did Satoshi really quit? Is Gavin really trustworthy? Why did he quit? What about Mike Hearn? What really happened with pirateat40? What really happened with the bear whale? What happened at MtGox? Is Roger Ver trustworthy? What about Peter Vessenes and the Bitcoin Foundation? Why did they add Satoshi to their list of "founders"? Is Blockstream trustworthy? What happened to Theymos and all those Bitcoins he raised to build a new forum? Who really is Craig Wright, and why would trustworthy people believe his claims? Why would others dismiss them out of hand?
Ask ten different questions. You will get a hundred different answers. People can't even seem to agree on a common interpretation of a fifty-word agreement that they all negotiated and signed.
Why is that, exactly?
Trading and finance and currency are ultimately just information games. Having the right information at the right time, and being able to trust it, can make you rich. Having the wrong information, and trusting it, can make you poor. And in the fiat world, at least, having no information, or taking the default position of not trusting anything, is guaranteed to make you poor, over time.
Bitcoin was designed to change that. Bitcoin was designed to overcome the information coordination problem. It was intended to reverse this fundamental bias of the modern economy towards disinformation, destruction and poverty. And the way it does this, the innovation which enables it to do so in a trustless manner, is proof-of-work.
Yes, Bitcoin is "decentralized," as it was designed to produce economic decentralization. But to say that there is no central authority is a blatant lie. The central authority is the genesis block, and all valid blocks after that which have the most proof of work. The central authority is the group of wonderful, intelligent, selfless people who worked tirelessly, both before Satoshi and after, to bring Bitcoin into fruition and unite the world behind it. The central authority is our shared recognition of the ordering and inclusion of transactions in the chain of transactions that goes back to the beginning. It can be distributed, divided among many miners and among many individuals controlling various pieces of Bitcoin, as seems to have been deliberately done.
But it must be global. It must be shared. It must be voluntary. And it must be valid.
Therefore, every attempt to alter the definition of "validity" should be evaluated with extreme skepticism. Who is making this proposal? What is their connection to Bitcoin, and to its creation? What are their other connections, and motivations? What are the methods used to promote this proposal, and to counter its detractors? Does this proposal continue to unite the Bitcoin community, or does it divide it needlessly?
I have witnessed, over the past seven years, Bitcoin become progressively more and more separated from its creation. I have seen individuals come and go with little explanation. I have seen a few controversial and influential figures intentionally segregated. And I have seen Bitcoin suffer for it. I can't help but wonder whether this is not only intentional, but malicious.
I, myself, have done my own small part to attempt to unite Bitcoin, to re-connect it to its creation, to determine and to share what is really going on. For this, I have been censored and maligned. I don't take it personally. But it does beg the question:
Is Bitcoin being deliberately divided?
I'm not talking about decentralization, whether of nodes or of mining or of development or of trading or of discussion or of the real Bitcoin economy. That's all well and good.
I'm talking about fundamental, basic, irreversible... division. Permanent and intentional separation of Bitcoin, from its creation.
submitted by benjamindees to btc [link] [comments]

On Mike Hearn, Block Size, and Bitcoin’s Future

My new years resolution was to avoid the block size debate. Oh well.

Regardless what you think of block size debate. Mike Hearn and his tactics have done nothing but pollute the well. He has been intransigent in development, his proposals were routinely shut down because they were horrible on a technical level, he had many dangerous ideas which undermined the very concept of Bitcoin. When he made no traction with his idea, he created his own Bitcoin client.
Because that wasn’t enough he began politicking users to switch to his client. When users found no technical benefit or improvement over his client and failed to adopt it, that wasn’t enough. He then found a tool which he could use to drive a wedge into the community, and drive adoption to his client or so he thought, the block size. Rather than offer constructive support to this issue, he recruited Gavin and others to create this imaginary war that did not exist, of a Bitcoin mafia vs the people. Coincidentally, it was during this time that he became concerned with the block size that the spam attacks on the network beginning happening. Heckuva coincidence.
Mike, in his dramatic style, made the proclamation that bitcoin is forking and with that he introduced a new level of politics to Bitcoin beyond what it had ever experienced. In addition, Mike has managed to make the scaling issue, a complex technical issue, into something that is a political litmus test, like abortion, or gun control, something that was sorely missing in a technical community.
As if merely raising the block limit would fix Bitcoin’s problem in his eyes. Mike is smart enough to know that wasn’t the case, but it didn’t matter because by turning something complex into something simple, he was able to sell the story, to people who weren’t interested in the technical nuances, but wanted something to hang their beliefs on. His ideas were perfect fodder to those adopters who were suffering in Bitcoin’s long bear market. Mike had the answer, bitcoin is suffering because the devs refuse to scale it. Mike Hearn had a simple solution, just change a number, it's so easy, any lay person can see that. Clearly if you opposed such a simple change you had ulterior motives, the people in opposition where trying to steal bitcoin.
Mike worked in front and behind the scenes like a dogged politician to create this imaginary timetable that bitcoin was about to explode and collapse, watch the price he said. Creating sensationalist media posts that were technically flawed, and painted bookworm engineers, who have done nothing but work in the best interest of Bitcoin, as scheming backroom politicians who were co-opting bitcoin for their meglo-maniacal ambitions (project much Mike?) When the time table for Bitcoin’s, life or death decision came and went, and bitcoin did not collapse, and no one adopted his client, he cried foul. Ironically, Mike laments that Bitcoin is the hands of 10 developers (not true) yet he had appointed himself the benevolent dictator of his coin Bitcoin-XT.
Why was the Bitcoin community not falling on its sword and adopting his plans? It’s probably because again, the secret cabal was conspiring to suppress his ideas. His ideas which were spammed over social media, which got thousands of page views, which generated hundreds if not thousands of hours of discussion. Despite all this, no-one knew that Mike had this beautiful solution to rescue bitcoin, all because this evil mafia conspired to deny freedom to Bitcoiners around the world and keep his ideas a secret.
Meanwhile actual developers are moving forward with proposals that will scale bitcoin but Mike says that isn’t enough. Despite his incessant nagging, driving XTers to brigade every bitcoin discussion, ruining technical discussions in the development mailing list. That still wasn’t enough. Nope, unless Mike Hearn got his way, Bitcoin is a failed experiment. Mike Hearn’s goal was never about Bitcoin, it was about wrecking Bitcoin. There is no way you can reconcile his tactics with someone who put Bitcoin first.
No one had previously proposed forking Bitcoin to their own client, without calling it an altcoin or alternate implementation. Even Garzik was clear about it in discussion with Satoshi himself. Mike was the first to introduce the idea that creating your own implementation of Bitcoin, which is not compatible with other implementations, and changes a core function of bitcoin with something as low as 75% approval, was not an alt version of bitcoin but was still Bitcoin. Amazing, He has attempted to change what was an accepted and understand aspect of Bitcoin.
Now forking Bitcoin is a grand idea, Bitcoin forks for everyone. Forking Bitcoin is not something new, it has been around since day one, and the community had agreed that a fork of Bitcoin, without unanimous consensus, was an Altcoin.
People who care about bitcoin do not promote Altcoins because it’s clear this would fracture Bitcoin and undermine the very method in which bitcoin secures itself. But in Mike’s world people should undermine their investment in order to get a better investment.
Bitcoin has shown that the economic consensus mechanism works, that the consensus will respect the protocol. That if the time to change the protocol comes, it will be a change that is readily apparent, and will be adopted unanimously (Mike, that means without opposition.) Because from an economic interest it makes no sense to undermine bitcoin by fracturing it. And so surprise, suprise, bitcoin participants are making rational economic decisions. Bitcoin is not a democracy where 51% rules. In fact that is Bitcoin in a state of attack.
Still the very fact that Bitcoin has continued to function, and even begun to rise again precisely when it was supposed to be collapsing, was a slap in the face to Mike Hearn. So the final stroke a front page NYT , “you can’t fire me I quit ” announcement with a dramatic companion post all over social media, as If Bitcoin has lost some key intellectual power.
Sorry Mike, but Bitcoin is not yours to fail.
The best thing that could happen to Bitcoin and Mike Hearn is a final divorce, though messy it has been. But has Mike really left us? Something tells me he hasn’t. Instead Mike’s new job will be to further the new meme that Bitcoin is a failed experiment and he should know because he was a “lead” developer who worked directly with Satoshi.
And for proof, this morning I watched the Brookings Institute Webstream of their conference Beyond the Blockchain. The very first thing thing Charley Cooper of R3 CEV (Mike’s new employer) brought up was how Bitcoin was failed according to Mike Hearn, how Bitcoin was not going anywhere and that the future was private block chains.
So let’s congratulate Mike on his new role, where he will work to undermine bitcoin at every turn in front of regulators, banks, VCs and the public. At least now Mike can stop pretending what his real goal has been all along.
Because this has never been about raising the block limit or about or about a technical issue. This has been about co-opting Bitcoin into either Mike Hearn’s coin, or something more nefarious, on behalf of greater powers.
Mike, Good Luck, Stay Strong; I wish you the best.
source: http://bitledger.info/on-mike-hearn-block-size-and-bitcoins-future/
submitted by bitledger to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2015-11-07 to 2018-12-03 19:07 PDT

Period: 1122.63 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 177195
Rate (per day) 0.89 157.49
Unique Redditors 537 19498
Combined Score 606295 1044009

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 28637 points, 50 submissions: Egon_1
    1. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" (4810 points, 506 comments)
    2. WSJ: "[bitcoin core] fees have reached an average cost of about $30 per transaction. That makes bitcoin virtually unusable for all but very large transactions. The Bitcoin Cash crowd is just trying to offer a solution to that problem." (1305 points, 338 comments)
    3. Friendly reminder that the LiteCoin ($36) founder sold 100% of his coins as it ran up to $300 while wearing a HODL shirt for video interviews. (1192 points, 293 comments)
    4. Rick Falkvinge:"Fun fact: I am aware of a truckload of companies currently in the process of converting from Bitcoin Legacy to #Bitcoin Cash. I am aware of zero (0) companies going the other direction." (657 points, 226 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin.com wallet now displays "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core" balances. Should satisfy everyone, right? ;)" (627 points, 444 comments)
    6. GDAX: "We will open the BCH-BTC Order Book on Wednesday, January 17 at 9:00 am PST." (618 points, 112 comments)
    7. Stephen (BitPay CEO):"a typical #bitcoin transaction costs $1.80 now, >200k unconfirmed transactions, time for a hard fork to larger blocks ... 8mb please" (544 points, 113 comments)
    8. Erik Voorhees: "Changing Bitcoin's proof-of-work to prevent miners from mining is the most absurd and reckless thing I've heard in the scaling debate." (539 points, 171 comments)
    9. Erik Voorhees: "Fellow Bitcoiners, are you ever going to realize how problematic these fees are getting? Avg fees now over $40 per tx. A year ago avg fee was $4. A year prior, $0.40. Growing faster than price, and exponentially with usage. We just spent $4800 to move 15 BTC in one TX." (539 points, 147 comments)
    10. BitPay CEO: “If people can’t engage in commerce, it’s hard to imagine why they’d want to store their money in Bitcoin in the first place” (537 points, 133 comments)
  2. 26883 points, 56 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. I'm Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com and world's first investor in Bitcoin startups. AMA (978 points, 932 comments)
    2. The pro Bitcoin Cash video from CNBC made it to the very front page of Yahoo.com! (858 points, 189 comments)
    3. I (Roger Ver) will be doing an AMA on Monday Dec 18th starting at 10AM EST on /BTC because /Bitcoin is completely censored. (826 points, 412 comments)
    4. Reminder: Blockstream and Core got 100% of everything they asked for. (807 points, 332 comments)
    5. I'm giving away $100 each of BCH and BTC on live TV tomorrow by displaying the private key. Guess why? (738 points, 827 comments)
    6. How wrong were they? More than 2 years ago the CEO of Lightning Labs said LN would be ready in less than 6 months (695 points, 275 comments)
    7. To the Censorship loving tyrants in /Bitcoin, don't Say Bitcoin.com didn't warn you! "In the unlikely event that the 2MB block size increase portion of Segwit2x fails to activate, Bitcoin.com will immediately shift all company resources to supporting Bitcoin Cash exclusively." (672 points, 363 comments)
    8. Sign the Petition for Clemency for Ross Ulbricht, Serving Double Life for a Website (663 points, 227 comments)
    9. I just bet 1,000 BTC (~$4M USD) that Segwit 2X coin will have more value than Segwit 1x coin. (644 points, 398 comments)
    10. If you think consumers are going to throw away $100’s (and soon $1000’s) on transaction fees to open up a payment channel on the Lightning network, you are delusional. (599 points, 219 comments)
  3. 12737 points, 26 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Censored! Youtube removes Roger Ver's video on "The effects of Censorship and Propaganda upon Bitcoin" (1002 points, 296 comments)
    2. CNBC is waking up (886 points, 144 comments)
    3. Despite massing brigading from bitcoin and core, @Bitcoin twitter account has gained 50k subscribers since it came out in support of BCH last week. (627 points, 197 comments)
    4. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. (619 points, 113 comments)
    5. Bitfinex defines Bitcoin Cash as the coin that fulfills the original promise of p2p cash, a bitcoin upgrade that is ready to scale and sound money! #Winning (599 points, 164 comments)
    6. Wouldn't wanna be this shopper. (581 points, 124 comments)
    7. GDAX enabling EUBCH trading pair next week. #winning 🎆 (572 points, 66 comments)
    8. Thank to this community's effort, Forbes has corrected Kyle's Torpey's LN article to clarify LTC tx fees is much higher than BCH. Now let's ask for 1 more correction: Bitcoin cash is not Bcash. Links in comments. (508 points, 173 comments)
    9. Elizabeth Stark of Lightning labs calls out Blockstream on letting users tinker with LN that's neither safe nor ready for mainnet. (490 points, 266 comments)
    10. The $2000 tip for Bitcoin ABC dev shows we don't need blockstream to pay our developers, we can do community funding through tippr! (463 points, 131 comments)
  4. 12410 points, 23 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. /bitcoin is censoring the NIST report that says "Bitcoin Cash is the original blockchain" and Bitcoin Core is not. If you have to censor to get people to believe you, then you have lost. (855 points, 496 comments)
    2. Free_Ross on Twitter: "ALL charges of murder-for-hire vs. Ross are now dropped. After almost 5 years, gov't has moved to dismiss final MD indictment based on evidence from corrupt agent now in prison." (759 points, 211 comments)
    3. Someone hacked the account todu which was a mod here to point users to /bitcoin (732 points, 259 comments)
    4. Former /cryptocurrency mod: "I used to be a mod of cryptocurrency until they kicked me out. Now, that sub, is controlled all by mods with accounts less than 7 months old!" (724 points, 214 comments)
    5. Congrats: /btc has reached 150,000 subscribers! (696 points, 356 comments)
    6. Twitter continues to go downhill - flags @Bitcoin account as ‘temporarily restricted due to unusual activity’ (635 points, 216 comments)
    7. There is a huge edit war on Wikipedia where trolls like the user "Jtbobwaysf" are trying very hard to inject the word "bcash" into Bitcoin Cash pages and reverting/editing other pages that speak factually poorly on topics such as Lightning Network, Segwit, etc. (622 points, 148 comments)
    8. What /bitcoin mods desperately don't want you to see! (601 points, 104 comments)
    9. /btc is trending on reddit today, congrats everyone! (586 points, 18 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit (579 points, 334 comments)
  5. 11766 points, 16 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." (3417 points, 463 comments)
    2. Dear Reddit Admins: We need to talk about /Bitcoin (1342 points, 280 comments)
    3. Paid for this whisky with Bitcoin Cash! Ginza bar becomes third Tokyo retail establishment to accept BCC (747 points, 60 comments)
    4. Samson Mow says Bitcoin isn't for people earning less than $2 a day. With average transaction fees now at $27.20, is Bitcoin even for people earning less than $100 a day? (659 points, 160 comments)
    5. Protip: If you are new to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, you really should read the document that started it all, the Bitcoin whitepaper [PDF] (642 points, 69 comments)
    6. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin (641 points, 121 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin in a nutshell (531 points, 68 comments)
    8. Three years ago today, Mike Hearn published an article explaining exactly what would happen when the 1MB blocksize limit was hit. He was right on all counts. (483 points, 168 comments)
    9. Shit, they're on to us (449 points, 65 comments)
    10. "Am I so out of touch?" (443 points, 164 comments)
  6. 9301 points, 2 submissions: censorship_notifier
    1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. (8585 points, 1166 comments)
    2. New anti-censorship bot for /bitcoin (716 points, 345 comments)
  7. 7980 points, 16 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. No Neo I'm trying to tell you ... (706 points, 77 comments)
    2. Blockstream is falling apart - Greg Maxwell resigns - Blockstream takes down team page in a hurry to reorg team - Adam Back must be worried (675 points, 492 comments)
    3. * Ripple is not mineable (it is a centralized private blockchain run by banks) (622 points, 254 comments)
    4. 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 (578 points, 188 comments)
    5. Blockstream investor emails leaked - shows Blockstream motivation to steal transaction fees from miners and pay to Liquid sidechain customers (539 points, 250 comments)
    6. Fixed - Bitcoin Cash moving money far better. SegWitCoin moving money with high fees and slow confirmation times! (532 points, 105 comments)
    7. Vitalik Buterin says what we've all been saying - CoinDesk is scammy and complicit bad actor in the cryptocurrency world and should be shunned (505 points, 59 comments)
    8. "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 (498 points, 143 comments)
    9. Coinbase comes through and does the correct thing and adds clarification on the upcoming Segwit2x Fork (454 points, 194 comments)
    10. Core trolls have hard decisions to make (437 points, 140 comments)
  8. 7772 points, 1 submission: PedanticPendant
    1. The idiocracy of bitcoin (7772 points, 750 comments)
  9. 7763 points, 13 submissions: jessquit
    1. You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction (1378 points, 386 comments)
    2. There never was a "scaling problem." The only problem is "people that don't want Bitcoin to scale." (772 points, 419 comments)
    3. Please stop saying "Increase the block size" (660 points, 449 comments)
    4. [PSA] If your Bitcoin are not ready-to-transact in a wallet whose keys you exclusively control, then you don't control your Bitcoin (622 points, 215 comments)
    5. Why us old-school Bitcoiners argue that Bitcoin Cash should be considered "the real Bitcoin" (587 points, 586 comments)
    6. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (541 points, 345 comments)
    7. Why large blocks: because one man's "coffee purchase transaction" is another man's monthly income (501 points, 104 comments)
    8. This sub is under major attack (494 points, 319 comments)
    9. There is a word for a "store of value" with no underlying utility, and that word is "collectible" (481 points, 169 comments)
    10. Ripple user comes to defend Ripple, gets hundreds of upvotes, but can't answer the most fundamental question: what prevents inflation? (459 points, 404 comments)
  10. 7400 points, 16 submissions: Windowly
    1. "If BCH hashpower > BTC, I'll start referring to it as just 'Bitcoin' :" ~ Gavin on twitter (778 points, 238 comments)
    2. You want to go grab a coffee?? (642 points, 413 comments)
    3. "I guess my idea of "freedom from corrupt banks" didn't include transaction fees that forced 99% of the world's population to keep using banks."~Erik Voorhees (603 points, 122 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin needs multiple clients and independent developer groups. There were 0-days in Microsoft Windows for two decades despite billions spent on development. Cut new teams some slack as they ramp up." ~Cornell Professor and Bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer (506 points, 91 comments)
    5. "With recent developments, I'm putting all available dev resources to retool my software for #Bitcoin Cash. I suspect I'm far from alone."~Rick Falkvinge (Pirate Party) (493 points, 134 comments)
    6. "We've tested Bitcoin Cash vs Lightning Network and... LN feels so unnecessary and over-complicated. Also, still more expensive than Bitcoin Cash fees - and that's not taking into account the $3 fees each way you open or close a $50 channel. Also two different balances? Confusing" ~ HandCash (461 points, 252 comments)
    7. That Awkward Moment. . . . (429 points, 129 comments)
    8. "There was an entire mall in 2013 to 2015 in Berlin that accepted Bitcoin. This stopped when fees rose. There was wide adoption once. Fees kill use"~Dr. Craig S. Wright (424 points, 150 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash finally released on Open Bazaar! (420 points, 36 comments)
    10. "Billion-dollar corporations take note: Bitcoin Cash is open for business! Just try to fill up our blocks, I dare you. There will be no "Fidelity Effect" with BCH. Unlike BTC, we want you to use the Blockchain. BCH never really hits a scale ceiling."~Dr. Peter Rizun (413 points, 177 comments)
  11. 6980 points, 1 submission: boomtnt46
    1. As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method (6980 points, 1178 comments)
  12. 6385 points, 9 submissions: rdar1999
    1. South Koreans sign petition (100k signatures) to reject ban proposal and 30k signatures asking to FIRE the Justice Minister and the Finance Minister for market manipulation. Crypto is winning!! (1863 points, 117 comments)
    2. BREAKING NEWS: South Korean Government confirms NO CRYPTO BAN. What they will do is to enforce regulations, anti money laundering task force, anti market manipulation, the usual stuff. (1085 points, 51 comments)
    3. Friendly reminder: Vitalik "I consider BCH a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name." (794 points, 181 comments)
    4. Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (562 points, 262 comments)
    5. GDAX: Bitcoin Cash Launch Retrospective -- trades were halted after 3 minutes because THE STASH DRIED OUT DUE TO AN AVALANCHE OF BUY ORDERS (485 points, 162 comments)
    6. While Jamie Dimon is shutting down your accounts, Russia’s largest State Bank is about to open cryptocurrency exchange In europe (439 points, 38 comments)
    7. Flippening: blockexplorer.com says: "We have made the decision to support the only bitcoin fork with a postive utility momentum, which is Bitcoin Cash.(...) We will not add future support for the Blockstream fork of bitcoin ("Bitcoin Legacy"), and will be deprecating it entirely " (428 points, 110 comments)
    8. National Institute of Standards and Technology confirm: "Bitcoin Core (BTC) is a fork and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the real Bitcoin" p.43 para 8.1.2 (372 points, 115 comments)
    9. TABGATE==> the astroturfing/hired shills scandal. Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls. Just read! (357 points, 271 comments)
  13. 6162 points, 7 submissions: normal_rc
    1. Legacy Bitcoin tries to buy a cup of coffee (2305 points, 499 comments)
    2. WARNING: Brutal scam. Guy buys a Ledger Nano wallet on Ebay, and it steals all his cryptocurrency ($34,000, which is his life's savings). (1479 points, 522 comments)
    3. How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC. (589 points, 220 comments)
    4. Cryptocurrency usually automatically downvotes any pro-BCH thread into oblivion. But I got my CoinText.io post to trend to #3 on their front page, by simply not saying "Bitcoin Cash". Proof that people would love BCH if they kept an open mind. (542 points, 202 comments)
    5. Tor Project can accept small donations again, thanks to Bitcoin Cash. (458 points, 35 comments)
    6. 100,000+ Merchants Start Accepting Bitcoin Cash. More than 100,000 BitPay merchants are now accepting Bitcoin Cash with the option seemingly automatically turned on for all of them. (416 points, 108 comments)
    7. Bitpay announcement: Electron Cash wallet now fully supports Bitpay BIP70 payment invoices for Bitcoin Cash. (373 points, 37 comments)
  14. 6023 points, 12 submissions: BitcoinIsTehFuture
    1. “Graphene” is a new Bitcoin block propagation technology that is 10x more efficient than Core’s “Compact Blocks”! Created by: Gavin Andresen, A. Pinar Ozisik, George Bissias, Amir Houmansadr, Brian Neil Levine. (717 points, 224 comments)
    2. Just so you guys know: Ethereum just had another successful hardfork network upgrade. Blockstream is wrong when they say you cannot hard fork to improve things. (655 points, 398 comments)
    3. Western Union vs. Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash (625 points, 102 comments)
    4. This was an orchestrated attack. (574 points, 373 comments)
    5. It's called "Bitcoin Cash". The term "Bcash" is a social attack run by bitcoin. Not joking. Here is the full explanation, with proof. (567 points, 310 comments)
    6. On a reply I made in bitcoin that had over 350 upvotes, I was first somehow blocked from being able to reply on bitcoin and then actually banned when I edited my comment to state that I was blocked from replying. (502 points, 99 comments)
    7. The /bitconnect subreddit just got set to private! Bitconnect experienced a 90% drop, from over $300 down to $26! The scam has gone belly up at last! (447 points, 168 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core Dev "Luke-jr" is asked why he is interested in Bitcoin. This is one of the main people in charge of Bitcoin right now. (405 points, 383 comments)
    9. I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (401 points, 166 comments)
    10. #NOTX (390 points, 56 comments)
  15. 5329 points, 1 submission: 11111101000
    1. Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase (5329 points, 1019 comments)
  16. 5147 points, 2 submissions: peptocurrency
    1. Guess who controls over half a billion Tethers across 3 exchanges—over 73% of USDT currently in circulation. (4748 points, 635 comments)
    2. Dear Bitcoin: You're right. BTC has been attacked. (399 points, 107 comments)
  17. 5098 points, 9 submissions: btcnewsupdates
    1. Starbucks CEO Wants Crypto. Considering All Currencies Except Bitcoin Core (BTC): "It is not a currency today nor will it be in the future” (820 points, 218 comments)
    2. Roger Ver: "Dear @reddit, [...] I'll pay you $100,000 USD if you simply appoint a moderator to /Bitcoin who supports free speech." (804 points, 424 comments)
    3. Hundreds of botted accounts mixed with some real ones simultaneously post "Bitcoin Cash is Trash" on twitter. Blockstream reaching sheer desperation status. (719 points, 281 comments)
    4. Overstock accepts Bitcoin Cash - BCH holders can now buy Home Goods, Bed & Bath Essentials, Jewellery & More! (591 points, 115 comments)
    5. ProtonMail asking for community assistance to enable Bitcoin Cash payments (538 points, 86 comments)
    6. WooCommerce brings Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to its 380,000 online retailers. (474 points, 98 comments)
    7. A Bitcoin Entrepreneur Jonathan Hamel knowingly misleads a Canadian Parliamentary committee to smear Bitcoin Cash (BCH). More Lawlessness from Bitcoin/Lightning (399 points, 193 comments)
    8. Largest Sports Gambling Site in the World, Bovada, now Accepts BCH. Billions of dollars in transactions a year (388 points, 60 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash support on OpenBazaar now live (365 points, 43 comments)
  18. 4698 points, 7 submissions: cryptorebel
    1. You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1420 points, 433 comments)
    2. President of SBI Holdings: "The vision of the original Bitcoin white paper written by Satoshi Nakamoto calls for a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. That is a powerful vision, and SBI Group will devote resources to enable a future world where Bitcoin Cash is used globally for daily payments." (843 points, 81 comments)
    3. They used to use Bitcoin... (738 points, 176 comments)
    4. 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 (494 points, 433 comments)
    5. CEO of Bitcoin.com Roger Ver challenges Samson Mow to a debate once again, will Samson refuse again? The reason small blockers do not debate and need censorship is because they know their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. (426 points, 208 comments)
    6. Update from BitGo: "Due to strong customer interest BitGo will enable full support of Bitcoin Cash" (407 points, 25 comments)
    7. BitPay CEO hints at possible Bitcoin Cash acceptance: "We do listen to our customers and for quite some time their number 1 complaint has been the high fees and slow confirmation times. We really don't like to pre-announce things though. Things move fast and plans can change at the last minute. " (370 points, 73 comments)
  19. 4339 points, 6 submissions: Anenome5
    1. Government: "Cryptocurrencies are too risky." Also government: "Buy lottery tickets." (1296 points, 139 comments)
    2. Death of a Scamcoin: Bitconnect's front page screenshotted moments before they went private, showing panic, anger, and lots of ill-advised investment claims, several claiming to have lost over $100k (948 points, 309 comments)
    3. Let's End the War and focus on the TRUE ENEMY (730 points, 349 comments)
    4. Archive.org has received over twice as many donations ($4800) in Bitcoincash as compared to BTC. This is how we win. (552 points, 157 comments)
    5. Segwhat? Gavin Andresen has developed a new block propagation algorithm able to compress the block down to 1/10th of the size of a Compact Block (Core's technology) using bloom filters called GRAPHENE. 10 times larger blocks, no size increase! 1mb 10mb, 8mb - 80mb, etc. (413 points, 181 comments)
    6. Remember Ross Ulbricht: Dread Pirate Roberts and the Silk Road experiment (400 points, 217 comments)
  20. 3746 points, 8 submissions: knight222
    1. PSA: /bitcoin IS UNDER ATTACK (761 points, 260 comments)
    2. /btc is trending! (528 points, 63 comments)
    3. Bitstamp To Launch Bitcoin Cash Trading (487 points, 80 comments)
    4. Mycelium.com on Twitter: "We support whatever will allow bitcoin to remain censorship resistant. For now that's only possible with bigger blocks." (442 points, 39 comments)
    5. CBS is referring the new chain as "Bitcoin Cash" and the old chain as "Bitcoin Classic". Ahah (421 points, 121 comments)
    6. Bitcoin cash (BCH) price could lead to bitcoin "death spiral" - Quartz (375 points, 55 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash just destroyed the narrative of a contentious hard fork. There is nothing contentious with free choice. (369 points, 114 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Cash support expected in the next Mycelium release! (363 points, 84 comments)
  21. 3550 points, 6 submissions: singularity87
    1. I am stepping down as a moderator of btc and exiting the bitcoin community and entering the Ethereum community. (1110 points, 482 comments)
    2. Now that the debate is over, lets finally make some progress forward. We are starting a marketing fund to expand Bitcoin Cash adoption. (722 points, 211 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash Logo Animation GIF. Feel free to use. (562 points, 83 comments)
    4. The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up. (440 points, 270 comments)
    5. Now that REAL consensus is forming, be ready for Core to offer a 2MB hardfork as a last ditch effort to retain their power. DO NOT GIVE IN! (363 points, 179 comments)
    6. btc now has ~50% of the active users of Bitcoin. At this rate btc will soon be the dominant bitcoin subreddit. (353 points, 55 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (17415 points, 1759 comments)
  2. H0dl (8425 points, 1127 comments)
  3. knight222 (7888 points, 810 comments)
  4. ForkiusMaximus (7755 points, 700 comments)
  5. MemoryDealers (7539 points, 197 comments)
  6. tippr (7348 points, 2740 comments)
  7. Ant-n (7224 points, 965 comments)
  8. BeijingBitcoins (6072 points, 459 comments)
  9. BitcoinXio (5984 points, 320 comments)
  10. BitcoinIsTehFuture (5845 points, 516 comments)
  11. imaginary_username (5762 points, 471 comments)
  12. Adrian-X (5748 points, 1069 comments)
  13. LexGrom (5224 points, 1592 comments)
  14. cryptorebel (4869 points, 464 comments)
  15. Egon_1 (4769 points, 368 comments)
  16. awemany (4738 points, 643 comments)
  17. Kain_niaK (4561 points, 692 comments)
  18. BitttBurger (4410 points, 525 comments)
  19. PsyRev_ (4176 points, 477 comments)
  20. Bitcoinopoly (4002 points, 414 comments)
  21. poorbrokebastard (3986 points, 719 comments)
  22. vbuterin (3840 points, 22 comments)
  23. Shock_The_Stream (3769 points, 437 comments)
  24. todu (3692 points, 266 comments)
  25. Richy_T (3626 points, 847 comments)
  26. LovelyDay (3595 points, 332 comments)
  27. shadowofashadow (3498 points, 383 comments)
  28. rdar1999 (3475 points, 456 comments)
  29. btcnewsupdates (3403 points, 328 comments)
  30. KoKansei (3286 points, 198 comments)
  31. jonald_fyookball (3219 points, 251 comments)
  32. 1s44c (3186 points, 619 comments)
  33. nanoakron (2989 points, 113 comments)
  34. NilacTheGrim (2925 points, 440 comments)
  35. singularity87 (2746 points, 240 comments)
  36. Vibr8gKiwi (2594 points, 148 comments)
  37. jstolfi (2541 points, 263 comments)
  38. esquonk (2532 points, 2 comments)
  39. fiah84 (2496 points, 289 comments)
  40. unitedstatian (2445 points, 451 comments)
  41. MobTwo (2372 points, 147 comments)
  42. chernobyl169 (2353 points, 199 comments)
  43. kairepaire (2280 points, 17 comments)
  44. ShadowOfHarbringer (2272 points, 206 comments)
  45. playfulexistence (2241 points, 99 comments)
  46. LiamGaughan (2240 points, 83 comments)
  47. redlightsaber (2238 points, 328 comments)
  48. we-are-all-satoshi (2201 points, 39 comments)
  49. Annapurna317 (2198 points, 223 comments)
  50. MagicalTux (2153 points, 114 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. by censorship_notifier (8585 points, 1166 comments)
  2. The idiocracy of bitcoin by PedanticPendant (7772 points, 750 comments)
  3. As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method by boomtnt46 (6980 points, 1178 comments)
  4. Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase by 11111101000 (5329 points, 1019 comments)
  5. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" by Egon_1 (4810 points, 506 comments)
  6. Guess who controls over half a billion Tethers across 3 exchanges—over 73% of USDT currently in circulation. by peptocurrency (4748 points, 635 comments)
  7. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." by BeijingBitcoins (3417 points, 463 comments)
  8. Latest projections show BTC will break the time space continuum by cryptopicker (3292 points, 146 comments)
  9. Two biggest Bitcoin subs according to their counterparts (posted on both subs) by themetalfriend (3135 points, 232 comments)
  10. rBitcoin logic: Cashing out? You should kill yourself instead by DrunkPanda (2918 points, 560 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 2527 points: esquonk's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  2. 2289 points: nanoakron's comment in Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
  3. 2025 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  4. 2018 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
  5. 1215 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
  6. 1211 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  7. 1184 points: anothertimewaster's comment in Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
  8. 1180 points: TacoPi's comment in Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase
  9. 962 points: insanityzwolf's comment in bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
  10. 868 points: SethEllis's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Roger Ver Retorts Hearn - The Death of Bitcoin Has Been Greatly Exaggerated - TDV Interviews Hitler gets enough of Mike Hearn Mike Hearn on Coming Bitcoin Protocol Updates - YouTube Mike Hearn - Bitcoin has NOT failed Mike Hearn, Bitcoin Core Developer, About Smart Contracts And Smart Property

In a detailed, no-holds-barred blog post, long-time Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn announced his withdrawal from the Bitcoin project and revealed his concerns regarding the future of Bitcoin: “…despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly.” All Bitcoin News. All Bitcoin discussion. All the time. BitcoinAll. jump to content. my subreddits. edit subscriptions. popular-all-random-users AskReddit-news-funny-pics-aww-worldnews-gaming-todayilearned-television-gifs-Showerthoughts-Jokes-videos-tifu-mildlyinteresting-TwoXChromosomes-OldSchoolCool-space-creepy -nottheonion-books-movies-personalfinance-LifeProTips-IAmA-explainlikeimfive ... Bitcoin slid by 10 percent on Friday after one of its lead developers, Mike Hearn, said in a blogpost that he was ending his involvement with the cryptocurrency and selling all of his remaining holdings because it had Mike Hearn, is one of the most high profile figures associated with Bitcoin. He has been a prominent member of the community in recent years, walking away from a job at Google to devote his time ... Bitcoin News The End is Near! – Mike Hearn on Bitcoin. It is indeed a sad day for the Bitcoin community as one of its core developers Mike Hearn decided to call it quits.

[index] [24453] [46102] [35765] [14897] [41702] [5808] [12125] [17005] [17534] [23779]

Roger Ver Retorts Hearn - The Death of Bitcoin Has Been Greatly Exaggerated - TDV Interviews

Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss Mike Hearn whiny rage quitting Bitcoin in order to join a banking system with life-or-death power but where no real auditing is possible. In the second half ... Money & Tech's Jered Kenna interviewed Bitcoin core developer Mike Hearn about BitcoinJ, the Tor network, and what developments are coming to the Bitcoin pro... In this interview Mike Hearn, Google Engineer and Bitcoin Core Developer, explains what was Satoshi's idea and what applications he envisions for the future of Bitcoin. We spoke about: - Mike's ... Jeff interviews top Bitcoin expert, Roger Ver, to counter the mis-information about the death of Bitcoin that has been circulating recently. Topics include: Mike Hearn's declaration on the death ... Mike Hearn - Bitcoin has NOT failed - Bitcoin Capital ... Skip navigation Sign in. Search. Loading... Close. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue. Remove all; Disconnect ...

#