Bitcoin Block Size, Explained – BitlyFool.com

AUG 25 DIGEST: 8 Leading Bitcoin Companies Pledge Support for BIP101; Bitcoin Exchange Rate Falls Below $200

AUG 25 DIGEST: 8 Leading Bitcoin Companies Pledge Support for BIP101; Bitcoin Exchange Rate Falls Below $200 submitted by MuchBitcoin to MuchBitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitstamp will switch to BIP 101 this December.

Bitstamp will switch to BIP 101 this December. submitted by kostialevin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why a single exchange can trigger adoption of BIP101

Why a single exchange can trigger adoption of BIP101 submitted by ProHashing to btc [link] [comments]

Why a single exchange can trigger adoption of BIP101

Why a single exchange can trigger adoption of BIP101 submitted by ProHashing to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

What happened to Coinbase and Bitstamp claims that they would switch to BIP101 by mid December?

Both said they would switch their nodes, but I have seen no news about it. Did they change their mind or are just our of schedule?
submitted by killugon to btc [link] [comments]

The 2-4-8 proposal would be disastrous for bitcoin

The 2-4-8 proposal would be disastrous for bitcoin submitted by ProHashing to btc [link] [comments]

Since BIP 101 is at ~0% hashing power, mathematically any move is getting closer to a majority.

Since BIP 101 is at ~0% hashing power, mathematically any move is getting closer to a majority. submitted by ciphera to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?

Here was an interesting brief exchange between Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and u/BitAlien about AXA:
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62d2yq/why_bitcoin_is_under_attack/dfm6jt?context=3
The "non-nullc" side of the conversation has already been censored by r\bitcoin - but I had previously archived it here :)
https://archive.fo/yWnWh#selection-2613.0-2615.1
u/BitAlien says to u/nullc :
Blockstream is funded by big banks, for example, AXA.
https://blockstream.com/2016/02/02/blockstream-new-investors-55-million-series-a.html
u/nullc says to u/BitAlien :
is funded by big banks, for example, AXA
AXA is a French multinational insurance firm.
But I guess we shouldn't expect much from someone who thinks miners unilatterally control bitcoin.
Typical semantics games and hair-splitting and bullshitting from Greg.
But I guess we shouldn't expect too much honesty or even understanding from someone like Greg who thinks that miners don't control Bitcoin.
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't understand how Bitcoin mining works
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zxl2l/mining_is_how_you_vote_for_rule_changes_gregs/
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is economically illiterate
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46052e/adam_back_greg_maxwell_are_experts_in_mathematics/)
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't understand how fiat works
Gregory Maxwell nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44qr31/gregory_maxwell_unullc_has_evidently_never_heard/
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is toxic to Bitcoin
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
So here we have Greg this week, desperately engaging in his usual little "semantics" games - claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank - when the real point is that:
AXA is clearly one of the most powerful fiat finance firms in the world.
Maybe when he's talking about the hairball of C++ spaghetti code that him and his fellow devs at Core/Blockstream are slowing turning their version of Bitcoin's codebase into... in that arcane (and increasingly irrelevant :) area maybe he still can dazzle some people with his usual meaningless technically correct but essentially erroneous bullshit.
But when it comes to finance and economics, Greg is in way over his head - and in those areas, he can't bullshit anyone. In fact, pretty much everything Greg ever says about finance or economics or banks is simply wrong.
He thinks he's proved some point by claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank.
But AXA is far worse than a mere "bank" or a mere "French multinational insurance company".
AXA is one of the top-five "companies that control the world" - and now (some people think) AXA is in charge of paying for Bitcoin "development".
A recent infographic published in the German Magazine "Die Zeit" showed that AXA is indeed the second-most-connected finance company in the world - right at the rotten "core" of the "fantasy fiat" financial system that runs our world today.
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
The link to the PDF at Die Zeit in the above OP is gone now - but there's other copies online:
https://www.konsumentenschutz.ch/sks/content/uploads/2014/03/Wem-geh%C3%B6rt-die-Welt.pdfother
http://www.zeit.de/2012/23/IG-Capitalist-Network
https://archive.fo/o/EzRea/https://www.konsumentenschutz.ch/sks/content/uploads/2014/03/Wem-geh%C3%B6rt-die-Welt.pdf
Plus there's lots of other research and articles at sites like the financial magazine Forbes, or the scientific publishing site plos.org, with articles which say the same thing - all the tables and graphs show that:
AXA is consistently among the top five "companies that control everything"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/22/the-147-companies-that-control-everything/#56b72685105b
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025995
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/37499/64037_1.pdf;sequence=1
https://www.outsiderclub.com/report/who-really-controls-the-world/1032
AXA is right at the rotten "core" of the world financial system. Their last CEO was even the head of the friggin' Bilderberg Group.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
So, let's get a few things straight here.
"AXA" might not be a household name to many people.
And Greg was "technically right" when he denied that AXA is a "bank" (which is basically the only kind of "right" that Greg ever is these days: "technically" :-)
But AXA is one of the most powerful finance companies in the world.
AXA was started as a French insurance company.
And now it's a French multinational insurance company.
But if you study up a bit on AXA, you'll see that they're not just any old "insurance" company.
AXA has their fingers in just about everything around the world - including a certain team of toxic Bitcoin devs who are radically trying to change Bitcoin:
And ever since AXA started throwing tens of millions of dollars in filthy fantasy fiat at a certain toxic dev named Gregory Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, suddenly he started saying that we can't have nice things like the gradually increasing blocksizes (and gradually increasing Bitcoin prices - which fortunately tend to increase proportional to the square of the blocksize because of Metcalfe's law :-) which were some of the main reasons most of us invested in Bitcoin in the first place.
My, my, my - how some people have changed!
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dtfld/previously_greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream/
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
Core/Blockstream supporters like to tiptoe around the facts a lot - hoping we won't pay attention to the fact that they're getting paid by a company like AXA, or hoping we'll get confused if Greg says that AXA isn't a bank but rather an insurance firm.
But the facts are the facts, whether AXA is an insurance giant or a bank:
  • AXA would be exposed as bankrupt in a world dominated by a "counterparty-free" asset class like Bitcoin.
  • AXA pays Greg's salary - and Greg is one of the major forces who has been actively attempting to block Bitcoin's on-chain scaling - and there's no way getting around the fact that artificially small blocksizes do lead to artificially low prices.
AXA kinda reminds me of AIG
If anyone here was paying attention when the cracks first started showing in the world fiat finance system around 2008, you may recall the name of another mega-insurance company, that was also one of the most connected finance companies in the world: AIG.
Falling Giant: A Case Study Of AIG
What was once the unthinkable occurred on September 16, 2008. On that date, the federal government gave the American International Group - better known as AIG (NYSE:AIG) - a bailout of $85 billion. In exchange, the U.S. government received nearly 80% of the firm's equity. For decades, AIG was the world's biggest insurer, a company known around the world for providing protection for individuals, companies and others. But in September, the company would have gone under if it were not for government assistance.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/american-investment-group-aig-bailout.asp
Why the Fed saved AIG and not Lehman
Bernanke did say he believed an AIG failure would be "catastrophic," and that the heavy use of derivatives made the AIG problem potentially more explosive.
An AIG failure, thanks to the firm's size and its vast web of trading partners, "would have triggered an intensification of the general run on international banking institutions," Bernanke said.
http://fortune.com/2010/09/02/why-the-fed-saved-aig-and-not-lehman/
Just like AIG, AXA is a "systemically important" finance company - one of the biggest insurance companies in the world.
And (like all major banks and insurance firms), AXA is drowning in worthless debt and bets (derivatives).
Most of AXA's balance sheet would go up in a puff of smoke if they actually did "mark-to-market" (ie, if they actually factored in the probability of the counterparties of their debts and bets actually coming through and paying AXA the full amount it says on the pretty little spreadsheets on everyone's computer screens).
In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA has mainly debt and bets. They rely on counterparties to pay them - maybe, someday, if the whole system doesn't go tits-up by then.
In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA does not hold the "private keys" to their so-called wealth :-)
So, like most giant multinational banks and insurers who spend all their time playing with debts and bets, AXA has been teetering on the edge of the abyss since 2008 - held together by chewing gum and paper clips and the miracle of Quantitative Easing - and also by all the clever accounting tricks that instantly become possible when money can go from being a gleam in a banker's eye to a pixel on a screen with just a few keystrokes - that wonderful world of "fantasy fiat" where central bankers ninja-mine billions of dollars in worthless paper and pixels into existence every month - and then for some reason every other month they have to hold a special "emergency central bankers meeting" to deal with the latest financial crisis du jour which "nobody could have seen coming".
AIG back in 2008 - much like AXA today - was another "systemically important" worldwide mega-insurance giant - with most of its net worth merely a pure fantasy on a spreadsheet and in a four-color annual report - glossing over the ugly reality that it's all based on toxic debts and derivatives which will never ever be paid off.
Mega-banks Mega-insurers like AXA are addicted to the never-ending "fantasy fiat" being injected into the casino of musical chairs involving bets upon bets upon bets upon bets upon bets - counterparty against counterparty against counterparty against counterparty - going 'round and 'round on the big beautiful carroussel where everyone is waiting on the next guy to pay up - and meanwhile everyone's cooking their books and sweeping their losses "under the rug", offshore or onto the taxpayers or into special-purpose vehicles - while the central banks keep printing up a trillion more here and a trillion more there in worthless debt-backed paper and pixels - while entire nations slowly sink into the toxic financial sludge of ever-increasing upayable debt and lower productivity and higher inflation, dragging down everyone's economies, enslaving everyone to increasing worktime and decreasing paychecks and unaffordable healthcare and education, corrupting our institutions and our leaders, distorting our investment and "capital allocation" decisions, inflating housing and healthcare and education beyond everyone's reach - and sending people off to die in endless wars to prop up the deadly failing Saudi-American oil-for-arms Petrodollar ninja-mined currency cartel.
In 2008, when the multinational insurance company AIG (along with their fellow gambling buddies at the multinational investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehmans) almost went down the drain due to all their toxic gambling debts, they also almost took the rest of the world with them.
And that's when the "core" dev team working for the miners central banks (the Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ - who all report to the "central bank of central banks" BIS in Basel) - started cranking up their mining rigs printing presses and keyboards and pixels to the max, unilaterally manipulating the "issuance schedule" of their shitcoins and flooding the world with tens of trillions in their worthless phoney fiat to save their sorry asses after all their toxic debts and bad bets.
AXA is at the very rotten "core" of this system - like AIG, a "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") mega-gigantic multinational insurance company - a fantasy fiat finance firm quietly sitting at the rotten core of our current corrupt financial system, basically impacting everything and everybody on this planet.
The "masters of the universe" from AXA are the people who go to Davos every year wining and dining on lobster and champagne - part of that elite circle that prints up endless money which they hand out to their friends while they continue to enslave everyone else - and then of course they always turn around and tell us we can't have nice things like roads and schools and healthcare because "austerity". (But somehow we always can have plenty of wars and prisons and climate change and terrorism because for some weird reason our "leaders" seem to love creating disasters.)
The smart people at AXA are probably all having nightmares - and the smart people at all the other companies in that circle of "too-big-to-fail" "fantasy fiat finance firms" are probably also having nightmares - about the following very possible scenario:
If Bitcoin succeeds, debt-and-derivatives-dependent financial "giants" like AXA will probably be exposed as having been bankrupt this entire time.
All their debts and bets will be exposed as not being worth the paper and pixels they were printed on - and at that point, in a cryptocurrency world, the only real money in the world will be "counterparty-free" assets ie cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin - where all you need to hold is your own private keys - and you're not dependent on the next deadbeat debt-ridden fiat slave down the line coughing up to pay you.
Some of those people at AXA and the rest of that mafia are probably quietly buying - sad that they missed out when Bitcoin was only $10 or $100 - but happy they can still get it for $1000 while Blockstream continues to suppress the price - and who knows, what the hell, they might as well throw some of that juicy "banker's bonus" into Bitcoin now just in case it really does go to $1 million a coin someday - which it could easily do with just 32MB blocks, and no modifications to the code (ie, no SegWit, no BU, no nuthin', just a slowly growing blocksize supporting a price growing roughly proportional to the square of the blocksize - like Bitcoin always actually did before the economically illiterate devs at Blockstream imposed their centrally planned blocksize on our previously decentralized system).
Meanwhile, other people at AXA and other major finance firms might be taking a different tack: happy to see all the disinfo and discord being sown among the Bitcoin community like they've been doing since they were founded in late 2014 - buying out all the devs, dumbing down the community to the point where now even the CTO of Blockstream Greg Mawxell gets the whitepaper totally backwards.
Maybe Core/Blockstream's failure-to-scale is a feature not a bug - for companies like AXA.
After all, AXA - like most of the major banks in the Europe and the US - are now basically totally dependent on debt and derivatives to pretend they're not already bankrupt.
Maybe Blockstream's dead-end road-map (written up by none other than Greg Maxwell), which has been slowly strangling Bitcoin for over two years now - and which could ultimately destroy Bitcoin via the poison pill of Core/Blockstream's SegWit trojan horse - maybe all this never-ending history of obstrution and foot-dragging and lying and failure from Blockstream is actually a feature and not a bug, as far as AXA and their banking buddies are concerned.
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
AXA has even invented some kind of "climate catastrophe" derivative - a bet where if the global warming destroys an entire region of the world, the "winner" gets paid.
Of course, derivatives would be something attractive to an insurance company - since basically most of their business is about making and taking bets.
So who knows - maybe AXA is "betting against" Bitcoin - and their little investment in the loser devs at Core/Blockstream is part of their strategy for "winning" that bet.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xjkof/im_angry_about_axa_scraping_some_counterfeit/
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jgkxv/bitcoin_can_go_to_10000_usd_with_4_mb_blocks_so/
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/
Anyways, people are noticing that it's a little... odd... the way Greg Maxwell seems to go to such lengths, in order to cover up the fact that bigger blocks have always correlated to higher price.
He seems to get very... uncomfortable... when people start pointing out that:
It sure looks like AXA is paying Greg Maxwell to suppress the Bitcoin price.
Greg Maxwell has now publicly confessed that he is engaging in deliberate market manipulation to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price. He could be doing this so that he and his associates can continue to accumulate while the price is still low (1 BTC = $570, ie 1 USD can buy 1750 "bits")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4wgq48/greg_maxwell_has_now_publicly_confessed_that_he/
Why did Blockstream CTO u/nullc Greg Maxwell risk being exposed as a fraud, by lying about basic math? He tried to convince people that Bitcoin does not obey Metcalfe's Law (claiming that Bitcoin price & volume are not correlated, when they obviously are). Why is this lie so precious to him?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57dsgz/why_did_blockstream_cto_unullc_greg_maxwell_risk/
I don't know how a so-called Bitcoin dev can sleep at night knowing he's getting paid by fucking AXA - a company that would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin becomes a major world currency.
Greg must have to go through some pretty complicated mental gymastics to justify in his mind what everyone else can see: he is a fucking sellout to one of the biggest fiat finance firms in the world - he's getting paid by (and defending) a company which would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin ever achieved multi-trillion dollar market cap.
Greg is literally getting paid by the second-most-connected "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") finance firm in the world - which will probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin were ever to assume its rightful place as a major currency with total market cap measured in the tens of trillions of dollars, destroying most of the toxic sludge of debt and derivatives keeping a bank financial giant like AXA afloat.
And it may at first sound batshit crazy (until You Do The Math), but Bitcoin actually really could go to one-million-dollars-a-coin in the next 8 years or so - without SegWit or BU or anything else - simply by continuing with Satoshi's original 32MB built-in blocksize limit and continuing to let miners keep blocks as small as possible to satisfy demand while avoiding orphans - a power which they've had this whole friggin' time and which they've been managing very well thank you.
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
Meanwhile Greg continues to work for Blockstream which is getting tens of millions of dollars from a company which would go bankrupt if Bitcoin were to actually scale on-chain to 32MB blocks and 1 million dollars per coin without all of Greg's meddling.
So Greg continues to get paid by AXA, spreading his ignorance about economics and his lies about Bitcoin on these forums.
In the end, who knows what Greg's motivations are, or AXA's motivations are.
But one thing we do know is this:
Satoshi didn't put Greg Maxwell or AXA in charge of deciding the blocksize.
The tricky part to understand about "one CPU, one vote" is that it does not mean there is some "pre-existing set of rules" which the miners somehow "enforce" (despite all the times when you hear some Core idiot using words like "consensus layer" or "enforcing the rules").
The tricky part about really understanding Bitcoin is this:
Hashpower doesn't just enforce the rules - hashpower makes the rules.
And if you think about it, this makes sense.
It's the only way Bitcoin actually could be decentralized.
It's kinda subtle - and it might be hard for someone to understand if they've been a slave to centralized authorities their whole life - but when we say that Bitcoin is "decentralized" then what it means is:
We all make the rules.
Because if hashpower doesn't make the rules - then you'd be right back where you started from, with some idiot like Greg Maxwell "making the rules" - or some corrupt too-big-to-fail bank debt-and-derivative-backed "fantasy fiat financial firm" like AXA making the rules - by buying out a dev team and telling us that that dev team "makes the rules".
But fortunately, Greg's opinions and ignorance and lies don't matter anymore.
Miners are waking up to the fact that they've always controlled the blocksize - and they always will control the blocksize - and there isn't a single goddamn thing Greg Maxwell or Blockstream or AXA can do to stop them from changing it - whether the miners end up using BU or Classic or BitcoinEC or they patch the code themselves.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y9qtg/coreblockstream_are_now_in_the_k%C3%BCblerross/
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU
Core deliberately provides software with a blocksize policy pre-baked in.
The ONLY thing BU-style software changes is that baking in. It refuses to bundle controversial blocksize policy in with the rest of the code it is offering. It unties the blocksize settings from the dev teams, so that you don't have to shop for both as a packaged unit.
The idea is that you can now have Core software security without having to submit to Core blocksize policy.
Running Core is like buying a Sony TV that only lets you watch Fox, because the other channels are locked away and you have to know how to solder a circuit board to see them. To change the channel, you as a layman would have to switch to a different TV made by some other manufacturer, who you may not think makes as reliable of TVs.
This is because Sony believes people should only ever watch Fox "because there are dangerous channels out there" or "because since everyone needs to watch the same channel, it is our job to decide what that channel is."
So the community is stuck with either watching Fox on their nice, reliable Sony TVs, or switching to all watching ABC on some more questionable TVs made by some new maker (like, in 2015 the XT team was the new maker and BIP101 was ABC).
BU (and now Classic and BitcoinEC) shatters that whole bizarre paradigm. BU is a TV that lets you tune to any channel you want, at your own risk.
The community is free to converge on any channel it wants to, and since everyone in this analogy wants to watch the same channel they will coordinate to find one.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/602vsy/clearing_up_some_widespread_confusions_about_bu/
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it.
What does it tell you that Core and its supporters are up in arms about a change that merely makes something more convenient for users and couldn't be prevented from happening anyway? Attacking the adjustable blocksize feature in BU and Classic as "dangerous" is a kind of trap, as it is an implicit admission that Bitcoin was being protected only by a small barrier of inconvenience, and a completely temporary one at that. If this was such a "danger" or such a vector for an "attack," how come we never heard about it before?
Even if we accept the improbable premise that inconvenience is the great bastion holding Bitcoin together and the paternalistic premise that stakeholders need to be fed consensus using a spoon of inconvenience, we still must ask, who shall do the spoonfeeding?
Core accepts these two amazing premises and further declares that Core alone shall be allowed to do the spoonfeeding. Or rather, if you really want to you can be spoonfed by other implementation clients like libbitcoin and btcd as long as they are all feeding you the same stances on controversial consensus settings as Core does.
It is high time the community see central planning and abuse of power for what it is, and reject both:
  • Throw off central planning by removing petty "inconvenience walls" (such as baked-in, dev-recommended blocksize caps) that interfere with stakeholders coordinating choices amongst themselves on controversial matters ...
  • Make such abuse of power impossible by encouraging many competing implementations to grow and blossom
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/
So it's time for Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc to get over his delusions of grandeur - and to admit he's just another dev, with just another opinion.
He also needs to look in the mirror and search his soul and confront the sad reality that he's basically turned into a sellout working for a shitty startup getting paid by the 5th (or 4th or 2nd) "most connected", "systemically important", "too-big-to-fail", debt-and-derivative-dependent multinational bank mega-insurance giant in the world AXA - a major fiat firm firm which is terrified of going bankrupt just like that other mega-insurnace firm AIG already almost did before the Fed rescued them in 2008 - a fiat finance firm which is probably very conflicted about Bitcoin, at the very least.
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by the most systemically important bank mega-insurance giant in the world, sitting at the rotten "core" of the our civilization's corrupt, dying fiat cartel.
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by a mega-bank mega-insurance company that will probably go bankrupt if and when Bitcoin ever gets a multi-trillion dollar market cap, which it can easily do with just 32MB blocks and no code changes at all from clueless meddling devs like him.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Could we please make a stronger attempt to bridge this divide in the community and get more insight into the thought processes of the Core Developers?

I'm making this post in what may be a futile attempt to bridge this ever widening gap in the Bitcoin community. This is mostly going to be from the perspective of a small-time investor, not a technical guy at all. I may not be the most qualified person to make this post, but I'd like to see more posts like this so that it may be possible for us to move past this current quagmire as a more unified community. I'm posting in this subreddit even under the fear that it may get removed because I want this to be seen by more than just the people that have been pushed out of this community.
Having said that, I think the first thing that we should acknowledge is that an extremely significant portion of the Bitcoin community HATE the core developers. I know that many don't care that this happens to be true, but this really should be cause for alarm. I'll spend most of this post addressing the reasons I think this is the case, then perhaps in the comments others can chime in, and we can hear from the Core developers as well.
I'd like to see more polls done within the community so that we can find a better sense of the thoughts of everybody. I'm not sure where the majority of support lies but I think we need to make a better effort to address the concerns of everybody, so that we can move forward as one, stronger unit. Every one of us have invested into Bitcoin in some way, and collectively, we are what make Bitcoin worth $414 dollars. If a significant portion of us get fed up and leave, we can expect price drop, which is bad for everybody. (Unless of course you have decided to short Bitcoin.) But the people that leave are probably not going to leave Crypto altogether. Personally, I've started putting more and more of my money into alt-coins that seem better equipped to fulfill the potential which Bitcoin may not be able to with the current development team. If enough of us decide that, it's possible that another coin could take over.
While this is unlikely, I think it's undeniably true that many have liquidated their Bitcoin holdings because this loss of faith in developers, and I think there are far more people that would like to invest, but think that Bitcoin is too risky with its current development team.
To that end, let's restore confidence in the current team by delving into their thought processes. I think everything unfortunately comes back to the blocksize debate. It's exhausting, but it needs to come to a conclusion if we want more people to invest in Bitcoin. And I think we all want as many people to invest in Bitcoin as possible.
  1. Core Developers don't seem to have any urgency to get this block size thing resolved. I think most people see this as the number one problem with bitcoin right now, and would like to see is all effort being put into a permanent solution before we see the developers work on less critical things. A lot of talk has been thrown around about a temporary, small increase to buy more time, but many want this blocksize issue to be in Bitcoin's rear-view mirror. The reason being that as long as this uncertainty exists, there are a lot of investors that simply won't get into bitcoin, and to foster the network effect, we need to get as many people in as soon as possible. We have a halving coming up shortly, which brings with it a potential price increase, and I for one would like to see how much it can go up if we don't have this blocksize cloud hanging over investors. So the question for Core Developers is, how much do you feel the same? How committed are you to putting out a permanent solution as quickly as is safe?(This, by the way, is why BIP101 is so appealing to so many people. It may not be the best solution, but it is A solution. One that has been tested, and can resolve this debate once and for all.)
  2. The Core Developers don't seem to be willing to compromise much. It's great that we had those scaling Bitcoin conferences, but what did we get out of them? When the major exchanges came out this summer in support of BIP101, the Core developers quickly issued a letter saying that they've heard our concerns, and asked us to wait until the Scaling Bitcoin conferences were over. Many were hoping for a clear path forward and a clear alternative to BIP101 upon the conclusion of the second one, but the second one has concluded and we do not have that. We have a lot of promising ideas, but nothing that would be an alternative to BIP101. (That is, something that would conclude this block size debate once and for all.) We don't even have a timeline or a plan for one. It seems to me that a golden opportunity was missed to compromise on BIP101. I didn't see anything come out of the conference that would last us more than a couple of years. BIP101 supporters want a clear path forward and they still do not have that from Core. So the questions is, how willing are you to compromise with the people that want BIP101? Would you be willing to compromise on a version of BIP101 that started at 4MB, or doubled slower?
  3. The Core developers aren't very good at communicating with their detractors. I think this is in part because they have little interest in communicating with people that don't understand the technical side of things. There is a sense that they see themselves above everybody else, and that they do not answer to the people that give their project value. Contrast this with the simple, thorough, and easy-to-understand, blog posts of Gavin and Mike. Gavin made a series of blog posts addressing every single one of Core developers concerns about raising the block size. As a casual investor, I really get the sense that he knows what he's talking about, and I trust him to lead us forward. The core developers didn't really do an adequate job explaining to us why that trust would be misplaced, and didn't adequately address his points about raising the block size. So the question is, will Core Developers make a better effort to communicate with us, and make us feel that our concerns are being heard? (This would of course include publicly denouncing the censorship which runs through some of the main Bitcoin channels, instead of pretending like it doesn't exist, or that it's not a problem.)
  4. It feels like core developers have framed the argument about raising the block size in a bad way. They have presented this as a matter of centralization vs. decentralization. Could you help us better understand why supporting BIP101 is necessarily synonymous with centralization, and why that would be a bad thing. It seems to me that the biggest concern is that if the block size gets too high, then it will be too cost prohibitive for an individual to run a full node, and it may lead to transactions not being broadcast because those transactions go against the interests of the small number of node operators that can afford to run them. (If I understand the argument correctly.) However, I'm not really too concerned about it. It seems that no matter how big Bitcoin gets, there will always be a significant number of early adopters that care about Bitcoin's decentralization, and will be able to afford to run a full node. This makes some sense, right? If we're maxing out 8GB blocks, it's difficult to imagine that bitcoin is going to continue to be worth $414 dollars. Most likely they will be worth tens of thousands of dollars, and given how much more affordable memory, disc space, and bandwidth are each and every year, I have a really hard time imagining a scenario where a full node would be so costly to operate that they there wouldn't still be plenty that are are willing to broadcast any valid transaction. So where am I wrong here? Why should I be more concerned about this than I am? (Also, when it comes to centralization, why is it okay for the future of Bitcoin to rely on Blockstream's ability to put out a functional Lightning network? If we had to rely on such a network to continue to make transactions affordably, wouldn't that be centralization as well?)
  5. It feels like the core developers are abandoning some of the potential that Bitcoin has to offer. When I was first looking into Bitcoin, I was told about all the potential the the blockchain could offer. This is one of the reasons I invested. We could use bitcoin for normal peer-to-peer financial transactions, but also micropayments, smart contracts, remittances, a distributed public ledger, colored coins, etc. It seems like if we want our currency to have the most possible value, shouldn't we try to do everything in our power to maximizes it's potential uses? Shouldn't we be inviting people to use our blockchain to use as they please instead of pushing them toward private blockchains? Do we still want Bitcoin to remain peer-to-peer? There seems to be a debate over whether Bitcoin should be merely a settlement layer. Can't it be both? Wouldn't it be more useful as both? Wouldn't that drive more people to invest?
This is getting long, and I know this isn't an exhaustive list of complaints, but I think it hits at the biggest ones. I also realize I may be showing my ignorance here as well, so please do correct any misunderstandings. I have a significant portion of my total wealth tied up in this currency, and I would like to be reassured that this remains a good investment with Core developers in charge. I believe that they do want what's best for Bitcoin, but their words and actions have been confusing, and fostering a greater divide in the community. It certainly feels like they aren't too concerned about Bitcoin as an investment for a lot of people, and I'd like to see that changed. Thank you for reading all this, and thank you for your thoughts and opinions. Lets keep this friendly, even if it ends up getting sorted by most controversial.
submitted by hotdogsafari to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork? | jl2012 at xbt.hk | Aug 18 2015

jl2012 at xbt.hk on Aug 18 2015:
As I understand, there is already a consensus among core dev that block
size should/could be raised. The remaining questions are how, when, how
much, and how fast. These are the questions for the coming Bitcoin
Scalability Workshops but immediate consensus in these issues are not
guaranteed.
Could we just stop the debate for a moment, and agree to a scheduled
experimental hardfork?
Objectives (by order of importance):
  1. The most important objective is to show the world that reaching
consensus for a Bitcoin hardfork is possible. If we could have a
successful one, we would have more in the future
  1. With a slight increase in block size, to collect data for future
hardforks
  1. To slightly relieve the pressure of full block, without minimal
adverse effects on network performance
With the objectives 1 and 2 in mind, this is to NOT intended to be a
kick-the-can-down-the-road solution. The third objective is more like a
side effect of this experiment.
Proposal (parameters in ** are my recommendations but negotiable):
  1. Today, we all agree that some kind of block size hardfork will happen
on t1=1 June 2016
  1. If no other consensus could be reached before t2=1 Feb 2016, we
will adopt the backup plan
  1. The backup plan is: t3=30 days after m=80% of miner approval, but
not before t1=1 June 2016, the block size is increased to s=1.5MB
  1. If the backup plan is adopted, we all agree that a better solution
should be found before t4=31 Dec 2017.
Rationale:
t1 = 1 June 2016 is chosen to make sure everyone have enough time to
prepare for a hardfork. Although we do not know what actually will
happen but we know something must happen around that moment.
t2 = 1 Feb 2016 is chosen to allow 5 more months of negotiations (and 2
months after the workshops). If it is successful, we don't need to
activate the backup plan
t3 = 30 days is chosen to make sure every full nodes have enough time to
upgrade after the actual hardfork date is confirmed
t4 = 31 Dec 2017 is chosen, with 1.5 year of data and further debate,
hopefully we would find a better solution. It is important to
acknowledge that the backup plan is not a final solution
m = 80%: We don't want a very small portion of miners to have the power
to veto a hardfork, while it is important to make sure the new fork is
secured by enough mining power. 80% is just a compromise.
s = 1.5MB. As the 1MB cap was set 5 years ago, there is no doubt that
all types of technology has since improved by >50%. I don't mind making
it a bit smaller but in that case not much valuable data could be
gathered and the second objective of this experiment may not be
archived.
If the community as a whole could agree with this experimental hardfork,
we could announce the plan on bitcoin.org and start coding of the patch
immediately. At the same time, exploration for a better solution
continues. If no further consensus could be reached, a new version of
Bitcoin Core with the patch will be released on or before 1 Feb 2016 and
everyone will be asked to upgrade immediately.
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010358.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

3 alternate implementations of bitcoin have or are implementing BIP101 BitcoinXT (Java) btcd (golang) bitcore (nodejs)

There are now at-least 3 alternate implementations to Bitcoin core that have implemented or are in the process of implementing BIP101.
And there are none that I know of that have implemented or are considering implementing any of the alternate proposals (BIP100, 102, 103, etc)!?! Although I feel it would be great to see some of those in code as well.
If a single exchange can trigger adoption of BIP101 as a post from yesterday suggested then there are a lot of choices to choose from now.
In 2013 some people in the community were concerned about the homogeneity of Bitcoin core in the ecosystem. Seems like this problem has slowly resolved itself. :)
submitted by kawalgrover to btc [link] [comments]

The Mike Hearn Show: Season Finale (and Bitcoin Classic: Series Premiere)

This post debunks Mike Hearn's conspiracy theories RE Blockstream in his farewell post and points out issues with the behavior of the Bitcoin Classic hard fork and sketchy tactics of its advocates
I used to be torn on how to judge Mike Hearn. On the one hand he has done some good work with BitcoinJ, Lighthouse etc. Certainly his choice of bloom filter has had a net negative effect on the privacy of SPV users, but all in all it works as advertised.* On the other hand, he has single handedly advocated for some of the most alarming behavior changes in the Bitcoin network (e.g. redlists, coinbase reallocation, BIP101 etc...) to date. Not to mention his advocacy in the past year has degraded from any semblance of professionalism into an adversarial us-vs-them propaganda train. I do not believe his long history with the Bitcoin community justifies this adversarial attitude.
As a side note, this post should not be taken as unabated support for Bitcoin Core. Certainly the dev team is made of humans and like all humans mistakes can be made (e.g. March 2013 fork). Some have even engaged in arguably unprofessional behavior but I have not yet witnessed any explicitly malicious activity from their camp (q). If evidence to the contrary can be provided, please share it. Thankfully the development of Bitcoin Core happens more or less completely out in the open; anyone can audit and monitor the goings on. I personally check the repo at least once a day to see what work is being done. I believe that the regular committers are genuinely interested in the overall well being of the Bitcoin network and work towards the common goal of maintaining and improving Core and do their best to juggle the competing interests of the community that depends on them. That is not to say that they are The Only Ones; for the time being they have stepped up to the plate to do the heavy lifting. Until that changes in some way they have my support.
The hard line that some of the developers have drawn in regards to the block size has caused a serious rift and this write up is a direct response to oft-repeated accusations made by Mike Hearn and his supporters about members of the core development team. I have no affiliations or connection with Blockstream, however I have met a handful of the core developers, both affiliated and unaffiliated with Blockstream.
Mike opens his farewell address with his pedigree to prove his opinion's worth. He masterfully washes over the mountain of work put into improving Bitcoin Core over the years by the "small blockians" to paint the picture that Blockstream is stonewalling the development of Bitcoin. The folks who signed Greg's scalability road map have done some of the most important, unsung work in Bitcoin. Performance improvements, privacy enhancements, increased reliability, better sync times, mempool management, bandwidth reductions etc... all those things are thanks to the core devs and the research community (e.g. Christian Decker), many of which will lead to a smoother transition to larger blocks (e.g. libsecp256k1).(1) While ignoring previous work and harping on the block size exclusively, Mike accuses those same people who have spent countless hours working on the protocol of trying to turn Bitcoin into something useless because they remain conservative on a highly contentious issue that has tangible effects on network topology.
The nature of this accusation is characteristic of Mike's attitude over the past year which marked a shift in the block size debate from a technical argument to a personal one (in tandem with DDoS and censorship in /Bitcoin and general toxicity from both sides). For example, Mike claimed that sidechains constitutes a conflict of interest, as Blockstream employees are "strongly incentivized to ensure [bitcoin] works poorly and never improves" despite thousands of commits to the contrary. Many of these commits are top down rewrites of low level Bitcoin functionality, not chump change by any means. I am not just "counting commits" here. Anyways, Blockstream's current client base consists of Bitcoin exchanges whose future hinges on the widespread adoption of Bitcoin. The more people that use Bitcoin the more demand there will be for sidechains to service the Bitcoin economy. Additionally, one could argue that if there was some sidechain that gained significant popularity (hundreds of thousands of users), larger blocks would be necessary to handle users depositing and withdrawing funds into/from the sidechain. Perhaps if they were miners and core devs at the same time then a conflict of interest on small blocks would be a more substantive accusation (create artificial scarcity to increase tx fees). The rational behind pricing out the Bitcoin "base" via capacity constraint to increase their business prospects as a sidechain consultancy is contrived and illogical. If you believe otherwise I implore you to share a detailed scenario in your reply so I can see if I am missing something.
Okay, so back to it. Mike made the right move when Core would not change its position, he forked Core and gave the community XT. The choice was there, most miners took a pass. Clearly there was not consensus on Mike's proposed scaling road map or how big blocks should be rolled out. And even though XT was a failure (mainly because of massive untested capacity increases which were opposed by some of the larger pools whose support was required to activate the 75% fork), it has inspired a wave of implementation competition. It should be noted that the censorship and attacks by members of /Bitcoin is completely unacceptable, there is no excuse for such behavior. While theymos is entitled to run his subreddit as he sees fit, if he continues to alienate users there may be a point of mass exodus following some significant event in the community that he tries to censor. As for the DDoS attackers, they should be ashamed of themselves; it is recommended that alt. nodes mask their user agents.
Although Mike has left the building, his alarmist mindset on the block size debate lives on through Bitcoin Classic, an implementation which is using a more subtle approach to inspire adoption, as jtoomim cozies up with miners to get their support while appealing to the masses with a call for an adherence to Satoshi's "original vision for Bitcoin." That said, it is not clear that he is competent enough to lead the charge on the maintenance/improvement of the Bitcoin protocol. That leaves most of the heavy lifting up to Gavin, as Jeff has historically done very little actual work for Core. We are thus in a potentially more precarious situation then when we were with XT, as some Chinese miners are apparently "on board" for a hard fork block size increase. Jtoomim has expressed a willingness to accept an exceptionally low (60 or 66%) consensus threshold to activate the hard fork if necessary. Why? Because of the lost "opportunity cost" of the threshold not being reached.(c) With variance my guess is that a lucky 55% could activate that 60% threshold. That's basically two Chinese miners. I don't mean to attack him personally, he is just willing to go down a path that requires the support of only two major Chinese mining pools to activate his hard fork. As a side effect of the latency issues of GFW, a block size increase might increase orphan rate outside of GFW, profiting the Chinese pools. With a 60% threshold there is no way for miners outside of China to block that hard fork.
To compound the popularity of this implementation, the efforts of Mike, Gavin and Jeff have further blinded many within the community to the mountain of effort that core devs have put in. And it seems to be working, as they are beginning to successfully ostracize the core devs beyond the network of "true big block-believers." It appears that Chinese miners are getting tired of the debate (and with it Core) and may shift to another implementation over the issue.(d) Some are going around to mining pools and trying to undermine Core's position in the soft vs. hard fork debate. These private appeals to the miner community are a concern because there is no way to know if bad information is being passed on with the intent to disrupt Core's consensus based approach to development in favor of an alternative implementation controlled (i.e. benevolent dictator) by those appealing directly to miners. If the core team is reading this, you need to get out there and start pushing your agenda so the community has a better understanding of what you all do every day and how important the work is. Get some fancy videos up to show the effects of block size increase and work on reading materials that are easy for non technically minded folk to identify with and get behind.
The soft fork debate really highlights the disingenuity of some of these actors. Generally speaking, soft forks are easier on network participants who do not regularly keep up with the network's software updates or have forked the code for personal use and are unable to upgrade in time, while hard forks require timely software upgrades if the user hopes to maintain consensus after a hardfork. The merits of that argument come with heavy debate. However, more concerning is the fact that hard forks require central planning and arguably increase the power developers have over changes to the protocol.(2) In contrast, the 'signal of readiness' behavior of soft forks allows the network to update without any hardcoded flags and developer oversight. Issues with hard forks are further compounded by activation thresholds, as soft forks generally require 95% consensus while Bitcoin Classic only calls for 60-75% consensus, exposing network users to a greater risk of competing chains after the fork. Mike didn't want to give the Chinese any more power, but now the post XT fallout has pushed the Chinese miners right into the Bitcoin Classic drivers seat.
While a net split did happen briefly during the BIP66 soft fork, imagine that scenario amplified by miners who do not agree to hard fork changes while controlling 25-40% of the networks hashing power. Two actively mined chains with competing interests, the Doomsday Scenario. With a 5% miner hold out on a soft fork, the fork will constantly reorg and malicious transactions will rarely have more than one or two confirmations.(b) During a soft fork, nodes can protect themselves from double spends by waiting for extra confirmations when the node alerts the user that a ANYONECANSPEND transaction has been seen. Thus, soft forks give Bitcoin users more control over their software (they can choose to treat a softfork as a soft fork or a soft fork as a hardfork) which allows for greater flexibility on upgrade plans for those actively maintaining nodes and other network critical software. (2) Advocating for a low threshold hard forks is a step in the wrong direction if we are trying to limit the "central planning" of any particular implementation. However I do not believe that is the main concern of the Bitcoin Classic devs.
To switch gears a bit, Mike is ironically concerned China "controls" Bitcoin, but wanted to implement a block size increase that would only increase their relative control (via increased orphans). Until the p2p wire protocol is significantly improved (IBLT, etc...), there is very little room (if any at all) to raise the block size without significantly increasing orphan risk. This can be easily determined by looking at jtoomim's testnet network data that passed through normal p2p network, not the relay network.(3) In the mean time this will only get worse if no one picks up the slack on the relay network that Matt Corallo is no longer maintaining. (4)
Centralization is bad regardless of the block size, but Mike tries to conflate the centralization issues with the Blockstream block size side show for dramatic effect. In retrospect, it would appear that the initial lack of cooperation on a block size increase actually staved off increases in orphan risk. Unfortunately, this centralization metric will likely increase with the cooperation of Chinese miners and Bitcoin Classic if major strides to reduce orphan rates are not made.
Mike also manages to link to a post from the ProHashing guy RE forever-stuck transactions, which has been shown to generally be the result of poorly maintained/improperly implemented wallet software.(6) Ultimately Mike wants fees to be fixed despite the fact you can't enforce fixed fees in a system that is not centrally planned. Miners could decide to raise their minimum fees even when blocks are >1mb, especially when blocks become too big to reliably propagate across the network without being orphaned. What is the marginal cost for a tx that increases orphan risk by some %? That is a question being explored with flexcaps. Even with larger blocks, if miners outside the GFW fear orphans they will not create the bigger blocks without a decent incentive; in other words, even with a larger block size you might still end up with variable fees. Regardless, it is generally understood that variable fees are not preferred from a UX standpoint, but developers of Bitcoin software do not have the luxury of enforcing specific fees beyond basic defaults hardcoded to prevent cheap DoS attacks. We must expose the user to just enough information so they can make an informed decision without being overwhelmed. Hard? Yes. Impossible. No.
Shifting gears, Mike states that current development progress via segwit is an empty ploy, despite the fact that segwit comes with not only a marginal capacity increase, but it also plugs up major malleability vectors, allows pruning blocks for historical data and a bunch of other fun stuff. It's a huge win for unconfirmed transactions (which Mike should love). Even if segwit does require non-negligible changes to wallet software and Bitcoin Core (500 lines LoC), it allows us time to improve block relay (IBLT, weak blocks) so we can start raising the block size without fear of increased orphan rate. Certainly we can rush to increase the block size now and further exacerbate the China problem, or we can focus on the "long play" and limit negative externalities.
And does segwit help the Lightning Network? Yes. Is that something that indicates a Blockstream conspiracy? No. Comically, the big blockians used to criticize Blockstream for advocating for LN when there was no one working on it, but now that it is actively being developed, the tune has changed and everything Blockstream does is a conspiracy to push for Bitcoin's future as a dystopic LN powered settlement network. Is LN "the answer?" Obviously not, most don't actually think that. How it actually works in practice is yet to be seen and there could be unforseen emergent characteristics that make it less useful for the average user than originally thought. But it's a tool that should be developed in unison with other scaling measures if only for its usefulness for instant txs and micropayments.
Regardless, the fundamental divide rests on ideological differences that we all know well. Mike is fine with the miner-only validation model for nodes and is willing to accept some miner centralization so long as he gets the necessary capacity increases to satisfy his personal expectations for the immediate future of Bitcoin. Greg and co believe that a distributed full node landscape helps maintain a balance of decentralization in the face of the miner centralization threat. For example, if you have 10 miners who are the only sources for blockchain data then you run the risk of undetectable censorship, prolific sybil attacks, and no mechanism for individuals to validate the network without trusting a third party. As an analogy, take the tor network: you use it with an expectation of privacy while understanding that the multi-hop nature of the routing will increase latency. Certainly you could improve latency by removing a hop or two, but with it you lose some privacy. Does tor's high latency make it useless? Maybe for watching Netflix, but not for submitting leaked documents to some newspaper. I believe this is the philosophy held by most of the core development team.
Mike does not believe that the Bitcoin network should cater to this philosophy and any activity which stunts the growth of on-chain transactions is a direct attack on the protocol. Ultimately however I believe Greg and co. also want Bitcoin to scale on-chain transactions as much as possible. They believe that in order for Bitcoin to increase its capacity while adhering to acceptable levels of decentralization, much work needs to be done. It's not a matter of if block size will be increased, but when. Mike has confused this adherence to strong principles of decentralization as disingenuous and a cover up for a dystopic future of Bitcoin where sidechains run wild with financial institutions paying $40 per transaction. Again, this does not make any sense to me. If banks are spending millions to co-op this network what advantage does a decentralized node landscape have to them?
There are a few roads that the community can take now: one where we delay a block size increase while improvements to the protocol are made (with the understanding that some users may have to wait a few blocks to have their transaction included, fees will be dependent on transaction volume, and transactions <$1 may be temporarily cost ineffective) so that when we do increase the block size, orphan rate and node drop off are insignificant. Another is the immediate large block size increase which possibly leads to a future Bitcoin which looks nothing like it does today: low numbers of validating nodes, heavy trust in centralized network explorers and thus a more vulnerable network to government coercion/general attack. Certainly there are smaller steps for block size increases which might not be as immediately devastating, and perhaps that is the middle ground which needs to be trodden to appease those who are emotionally invested in a bigger block size. Combined with segwit however, max block sizes could reach unacceptable levels. There are other scenarios which might play out with competing chains etc..., but in that future Bitcoin has effectively failed.
As any technology that requires maintenance and human interaction, Bitcoin will require politicking for decision making. Up until now that has occurred via the "vote download" for software which implements some change to the protocol. I believe this will continue to be the most robust of options available to us. Now that there is competition, the Bitcoin Core community can properly advocate for changes to the protocol that it sees fit without being accused of co-opting the development of Bitcoin. An ironic outcome to the situation at hand. If users want their Bitcoins to remain valuable, they must actively determine which developers are most competent and have their best interests at heart. So far the core dev community has years of substantial and successful contributions under its belt, while the alt implementations have a smattering of developers who have not yet publicly proven (besides perhaps Gavin--although his early mistakes with block size estimates is concerning) they have the skills and endurance necessary to maintain a full node implementation. Perhaps now it is time that we focus on the personalities who many want to trust Bitcoin's future. Let us see if they can improve the speed at which signatures are validated by 7x. Or if they can devise privacy preserving protocols like Confidential Transactions. Or can they figure out ways to improve traversal times across a merkle tree? Can they implement HD functionality into a wallet without any coin-crushing bugs? Can they successfully modularize their implementation without breaking everything? If so, let's welcome them with open arms.
But Mike is at R3 now, which seems like a better fit for him ideologically. He can govern the rules with relative impunity and there is not a huge community of open source developers, researchers and enthusiasts to disagree with. I will admit, his posts are very convincing at first blush, but ultimately they are nothing more than a one sided appeal to the those in the community who have unrealistic or incomplete understandings of the technical challenges faced by developers maintaining a consensus critical, validation-heavy, distributed system that operates within an adversarial environment. Mike always enjoyed attacking Blockstream, but when survey his past behavior it becomes clear that his motives were not always pure. Why else would you leave with such a nasty, public farewell?
To all the XT'ers, btc'ers and so on, I only ask that you show some compassion when you critique the work of Bitcoin Core devs. We understand you have a competing vision for the scaling of Bitcoin over the next few years. They want Bitcoin to scale too, you just disagree on how and when it should be done. Vilifying and attacking the developers only further divides the community and scares away potential future talent who may want to further the Bitcoin cause. Unless you can replace the folks doing all this hard work on the protocol or can pay someone equally as competent, please think twice before you say something nasty.
As for Mike, I wish you the best at R3 and hope that you can one day return to the Bitcoin community with a more open mind. It must hurt having your software out there being used by so many but your voice snuffed. Hopefully one day you can return when many of the hard problems are solved (e.g. reduced propagation delays, better access to cheap bandwidth) and the road to safe block size increases have been paved.
(*) https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf
(q) https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6
(b) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012026.html
(c) https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/1#issuecomment-170299027
(d) http://toom.im/jameshilliard_classic_PR_1.html
(0) http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/06
(1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors
(2) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012014.html
(3) https://toom.im/blocktime (beware of heavy website)
(4) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=766190.msg13510513#msg13510513
(5) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10774773
(6) http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=573
edit, fixed some things.
edit 2, tried to clarify some more things and remove some personal bias thanks to astro
submitted by citboins to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

On decentralization: Why I think increased blocksize will aid decentralization, even if it increases network burden.

Posted this a long, long time ago when BitcoinXT was leading the fight, and BIP101 was a thing. Figure I'd post here so people are better informed whenever they encounter cries of "but what about muh decentralization? Big blocks bad!".
There are several aspects of Bitcoin that need "decentralization", and I think growth will actually improve them, not harm.
Looking narrowly: If we only look at one aspect - network decentralization - under a narrow assumption: That adoption remains exactly the same as today, the amount of stakeholders and commerce remains frozen, then indeed bigger (filled) blocks will lead to a worse centralization. That I can see, and is what your guys have been warning all along.
However, in reality adoption is not staying static, number of stakeholders and amount of commerce is not staying static, and are all in fact heavily affected by expectations resulting from the blocksize limit. Decentralization of the following, as I see it, has the potential to be improved by increased adoption that's made possible by higher tps:
In short, I don't think we should trade a path to much greater resilience (as described above), that's only possible with greater adoption made possible by increasing blocksize, for a short-term, narrowly-defined network "decentralization" that will not even be relevant if other aspects above are compromised. That, and it's highly doubtful that 8MB/16MB blocks are even gonna hurt network decentralization that much in the short term. (Edit: now proven correct via Bitcoin Cash) My two cents.
submitted by imaginary_username to btc [link] [comments]

Hear me out... what if we pegged the maximum block size to difficulty?

There are many different views among people who want to scale bitcoin on chain.
Some feel there should be no maximum blocksize. They feel that miners will not publish giant blocks because of the orphan risk. Also, doing this would damage bitcoin, hurt the price, and by extension the miner's bottom line.
Others (like me) feel that this is too risky and that someone with ulterior motives may try to harm bitcoin by bloating the blockchain, whether that's suddenly, or gradually. It could be another competing cryptocurrency, who is to say?
Proposed solutions:
But what if I'm wrong and that new technology doesn't appear? What if we scale the blocksize, but hardware cannot keep pace, and suddenly only google can afford to run a Bitcoin node? Whether or not this is a reasonable concern doesn't matter, it's scary enough to block scaling solutions and fragment the community.
A different solution
What if the maximum blocksize could be pegged to the speed of processing? Processing, network, and storage efficiencies are positively correlated over decades.
What if we pegged the blocksize to... difficulty? This would mean two variables would drive the maximum throughput of the Bitcoin network:
1) the price of Bitcoin 2) the efficiency of the chips mining it
These two variables seem like a great way to limit the maximum blocksize, because they do not require human voting (arguably the bitcoin price is set by "voting" on the market I suppose), but also aren't a blind extrapolation of past trends in computing efficiency.
We would end up with bigger blocks as difficulty increases. As long as the scale only goes larger and does not shrink, this feels like a way to scale on chain that avoids a lot of the challenges of other proposals.
You could literally divide the difficulty by 100,000 and have your maximum blocksize, or almost 12 MB blocks right now.
submitted by willmadden to btc [link] [comments]

Miners have too much power. Its time to re-decentralize mining.

Miners supporting the BIP100 (which has not been implemented, is highly flawed and influenced by economic interests of blockstream) shows that miners want complete control over the blockchain. Whereas, its clear now that merchants, exchanges and majority users want BIP101. Putting the future of the whole ecosystem in the hands of a dozen of miners is not healthy.
This is the first time since 2011 that I have actually thought about moving from Bitcoin to another cryptocurrency. This is the first time ever that my confidence in Bitcoin has shaken. MtGox disaster, price manipulation, etc. nothing could ever budge me. This is the first time that I am feeling actually depressed and helpless.
Fortunately, its still not too late. We, as a community, can take the things back in our hand. We need to put a cheap but advanced miner in every bitcoin user's house. That way, the users can actually vote on what they want.
I know what I proposed is a mammoth task, but its not impossible. We are 12000 strong. With an average contribution of $1000 each, we can easily raise 12 million dollars. And this is more than enough to design the most advanced miners, and deliver them to the contributing members. It will take time, but we can definitely do this before a disaster happens, if we start now!
submitted by bitp to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

A Potential Solution to the Blocksize Debate

I do apologise. This turned into a far longer post than I envisaged.
TLDR: Where the developers are unable to reach an agreement, the miners are unwilling to be the jury and the economic majority has consensus for a certain action, the economic majority's only choice of acting upon it's decision, and thus enforcing it's will, may be the option of forking with a changed algo. Such option may only need to be used once for it forever to suffice as a credible threat to anyone who wishes to centrally control bitcoin:
So, what happens now?
From what we are reading it seems clear that no developer "consensus" can be reached for a blocksize increase which defacto means a settlement system and, as we all expected, nothing has come out of the conference except for a small increase to 2mb or so in about six months or so.
In a public conversation in the workshop IRC channel I had with wangchung, the F2Pool admin, he publicly stated that he would support BIP101 but starting at 2mb, then doubling every two years for the next two decades. Not ideal, of course, that would mean 2mb immediately, then 4mb in 2018, 8 in 2020 and so on, but with SW improvements and if it closes the debate then perhaps it may be a necessary compromise.
The miners however have publicly suggested that they are followers, not leaders. Therefore seem unwilling to take the initiative themselves even where their majority agrees, as in the case of BIP100. So we have a situation here where the developers are unable or unwilling to reach an agreement, and the miners are unwilling to make a decision, so it is left to the economic majority to conclude the debate.
Now, I'm just throwing ideas here for discussion in the spirit of exploratory enquiry without suggesting any course of action and I highly welcome comments to try and answer this very important governance/decision-making question:
Where the developers are unwilling or unable to reach a conclusion either due to genuine or corrupted opinions and the miners consider themselves to not be the "jury", how does the economic majority make a decision and act upon it, thus conclude the debate?
That is a general question, not specific to the debate at hand, but since the hardfork is the main issue I suppose it might be helpful to propose some specific assumptions regardless of whether they are actually true or not.
Let us suppose that the developers can never reach an agreement, thus taking them out of the decision making process. Let us further suppose that the miners will not act unless the developers reach an agreement, thus taking them out of the decision making process too. Let us suppose that if the economic majority does not act we de facto get a settlement system (as well as perhaps crown some emperor) and, quite importantly, let us suppose that the economic majority strongly supports bip101.
With the economic majority being the only party that has made a positive decision in the above scenario and the only stakeholder with consensus amongst their rank, how do they act upon this decision and conclude the debate?
To satisfactorily answer that question seems to me a difficult endeavour. To illustrate, Brian Armstrong recently stated that it is for the miners to "vote", while the miners are saying it is not for them to be the jury/voters. It is not clear to me who the miners think is the jury. With the economic majority having expressed their opinion quite clearly, and the miners still not following their decision, how does the economic majority act to enforce the only positive (in the sense of making an active/passive choice rather than good/bad) decision made so far?
The economic majority can of course implement BIP101, but with the miners not moving over there is no activation. I suppose the economic majority can wait for the miners to move over, but with the miners following the developers who are disagreeing whether due to genuine beliefs or corruption/sabotage with no likelihood of an agreement in sight, the economic majority is no longer making a positive decision. This would set a terrible precedence in my view as it would allow 1 or 2 developers to veto any changes as well as place the developers in a position of power and control, thus eventually create a hierarchy within the developers with one of them being the defacto emperor.
Unless someone smarter than me can suggest any other option/s, the only way for the economic majority to act upon its decision seems to me to be the option of forking with the mining algo changed.
I don't think anyone would want to exercise that option lightly nor am I knowledgeable enough to know how it would play out. Practically speaking security would be lower, but I would think for only a short time as the race heats up for more and more hashshare. The older chain would continue and the older miners would have no option but to continue mining it. We can expect at least 1 exchange to hold out, perhaps btcc considering its mining investment. Then there is the individual vote.
Coins can only be sold once, in each chain. Therefore the rational investor, if he takes any action at all, will sell the chain they objectively think will lose because if they sell the wrong chain then they have effectively sold their bitcoin at the market price which may at the time be far lower than once the voting war is over.
In our case, the mpex crowed has threatened to sell the bip101 chain regardless of who they think will win. If they carry out their action, they will effectively sell their coins at a, probably, far below market price. That would be an irrational decision as they would effectively be burning their own money, thus many of them would hesitate if they objectively think that bip101 would win, therefore the threat is probably a bluff. If it is not, as the economic majority would be in favour of bip101, I would think there would be plenty of buyers for their very cheap coins. Thus, at best, they would only cause some volatility to the rest, while committing suicide for themselves.
On the other hand, Roger Ver et all will prob sell the 1mb chain. As it has less than 20% public support, I doubt there would be many buyers for the 1mb coins, thus economically crippling the 1mb chain and it's miners with it.
The speculators, of course, will do their, probably decisive, part in concluding with one winning chain while the vast majority would probably just wait until the dust settles with one coin being obviously the loser and the price of the wining coin stabilising or perhaps moon landing. Thereafter, the decision having been made, we can finally move on having set an incredibly powerful precedent.
Since nukes were invented we have had to only use them once, to show their power, and in now more than 70 years have never used them again and one would hope they never are. To fork with a changed algo burns hundreds of millions, if not billions, in mining investment and would likely create some high short term price volatility.
One would think, however, that a credible threat of a serious consideration of this option would be sufficient for miners to listen to the jury/voters of the economic majority and adopt bip101 or a likewise proposal perhaps starting at 4mb or so without the need to actually go through with it.
Such credible threat perhaps can be started by some small player creating the changed algo client which necessarily would attract a lot of cpu/gpu miners, and then it may be sufficient for coinbase/bitstamp to just propose the idea of shifting to this client to place the miners on a conclusive decision mode.
Otherwise, through inaction, we are effectively concluding the debate by following a path that is being laid towards a settlement system without a white paper on how such system would work in its entirety, how miners are incentivised, how nodes are incentivised, it's usability for mum and pop, the advantages of bitcoin against other payment systems to mom and pop if we take out free or very cheap, instant, permissionless, and if we take out smart contracts as well as proof of work itself which is the whole point of bitcoin.
It may well be that some individuals who hold influential positions hold genuine beliefs in holding against scaling proof of work, but by showing the economic majority powerless to take positive action, miners as easily made to follow by some dissent, and thus developers (who can be counted by hand) as effectively the decision makers, a dangerous precedent is set for the developers themselves who become targets and for bitcoin who would be shown to easily be centrally controllable.
Thus, it is decision time for bitcoin. After almost a full year of debating all the imaginable points, two conferences, and the positions having been fully laid out by all sides at this point, the ball is on the economic majority, who is the only stakeholder that can conclude the debate, to decide whether they wish to take positive action in favour of their within rank consensus decision, or take a passive decision and thus forever give up it's power. Both have ramifications, yet only one is the choice.
TLDR: Where the developers are unable to reach an agreement, the miners are unwilling to be the jury and the economic majority has consensus for a certain action, the economic majority's only choice of acting upon it's decision, and thus enforcing it's will, may be the option of forking with a changed algo. Such option may only need to be used once for it forever to suffice as a credible threat to anyone who wishes to centrally control bitcoin.
See also: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-162#post-5545
submitted by aquentin to btc [link] [comments]

No need to push bip101

Disclosure I favor bip101 as it is the only tangible solution with real code for "scalability" not just scale. Not just talk, theory or proposals.
However IMHO Better solutions are possible. More of which will become available last minute as we approach filled blocks. Whenever that may actually be.
If you are an economics geek like most of us in these subreddits, you should realize that demand for a fix increases as the block size gets close to what i believe a fictional breaking point.
it is in the majority* of everyone's interests of those that can implement changes (miners/exchanges/nodes/developers) to see bitcoin succeed. Which is why I don't think said breaking point exists. All of which are aware of bip101 as well as some other potential avenues of scaling.
In the end the solution that works best will win. Further education on bip101 to users at least is not really required at this point.
I personally think nullc is correct in fearing a fork. Forking Is the single most dangerous thing we can do the blockchain, even when properly tested.... there are still no guarantees about real world success in the long term.
The hate towards him is unjustified.
Even gavinandresen fears forks, he coded bip101 because as bad as forks are having no competitive options is a worse situation. A very valid position to have. While some of the others in core may disagree with said position, i am willing to bet they also value having competing opinions. despite what might be misrepresented here on this subreddit.
Is a soft fork solution possible? Some developers think yes others no.Universally agreed soft fork is optimal solution (if possible). Soft fork options will be investigated right up until the very last minute, but in the end there will always be a hard fork solution availible. Because it is there I don't fear the block size.
The speed of which miners can upgrade is very fast. Which means this can happen right at the very last minute... though i suspect will happen when we are very close to full capacity or about a week where full blocks are the majority.
Ideas and merits do and need to stand on their own, including bip101. No need to push bip101 or any other for that matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClQcUyhoxTg
submitted by bitwork to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Power distribution and policy decision. How can we, the users, have a vote in what options we are given to uphold the original ideology of bitcoin?

The recent scaling at HK was a eye opener for a lot of people. We had > 90% of hashing power via pool operators standing on one stage, answering questions.
One thing that was very clear, to many people who were present and those who watched, is that the miners were all consistent in their answers in regards to direction on blocksize:
They want the core maintainers of the software to make the hard decisions in regards to blocksize. They are essentially giving up their vote, saying "we want you to choose for us".
Let us look at the current distribution of power:
The power distribution is listed in a relevant order here. Everyone understands that the miners a key group in the power distribution. Without network security bitcoin is worthless, so the direction that miners take will be the winning software choice. They are much higher on the decision making chain, only a step beneath the maintainers from the Top down perspective of maintainers providing software, and then the voting mechanism to choose which software is run.
Its more so the miners that get to chose the software than the users, and it is important to understand this power dynamic. The miners will chose the majority as its in their economic interests, and if we only have one option from our core maintainers, there can only be one choice. Ignoring the power of the core maintainers in this position of authority is to appeal to delusion. Their vote counts more, as well as everyone knows, than a competitor. Add a mining power allocation and their vote becomes a dictatorship.
The core maintainers prefer to take a neutral stance, stating it is the users which decide which software is run. They stay out of economic decisions and leave that to the community at wide to decide.
But if the power distribution model has been disrupted, and the miners have allocated their voting power to the core maintainers, does that change the position of authority for the core maintainers? Are they not then in a position of dictatorship, knowing that the option they give is the option that will succeed?
In this event, I would state that the only way for the core maintainers to balance the power distribution is to provide multiple options for the community to decide upon. Any single solution they provide, given the context of the miners allocating their voting decision, is going to be the winning decision. This action cannot be ignored as it represents a cabal and takes away the decentralized nature of bitcoin. This is literally a point of failure within the ecosystem, one so large that we must hash it out and make our voice heard, otherwise this can be manipulated in the future to undesirable outcomes.
Can the core maintainers ignore this position and continue to provide only one solution? Currently we have reached a rough consensus that the way forward is going to be based on gmaxwell's plan, which calls for a implementation of SW as a softwork, and keeping the traditional blocksize at 1mb. You can see current voting here
In this, I wholeheartedly agree with jgarzik and his direction, which he has voiced publicly but this specific quote was mentioned in private:
"Maintainers should come up with a menu of possibilities and let the community have a voice in choosing. There needs to be more communication to users and more choices given."
I brought up the issue of contentious hardforks, and how core maintainers may have a moral and economic responsibility to not submit those to public in fear of forking the community at large. His response:
"IMO it is done in stages - try to measure consensus - roll out - measure adoption and have fallbacks (failure scenarios) plotted out. Each point - merge / release / initial adoption / wide adoption provides opportunity for feedback and further consensus measuring -before- a chain fork. All the block size increases require 80-90% hashpower lock-in, at a minimum and miners tend to be conservative, following, not leading, consensus. Miners want to stick with the economic majority, because that maximizes the value of their bitcoin income."
What this means, is that if we were given two options, say potentially:
This would allow the users to truly have a voice. So long as the core maintainers have a majority of authority granted to them, they cannot ignore that they have a over-wielding reach of power. The only way they can distribute that power is by giving the users more choices.
Since a hardfork would require a non-contentious event, then allocating a 95% activation threshold removes that argument. If there are multiple proposals out there in the wild, then it does not matter so long as all play by the same rules. And they will all play by the same rules so long as there is a 95% threshold on activation!
All this would do would be to grant users the choice of which software they wish to run, as initially envisioned by satoshi and continued by the bitcoin community at large. So long as the core maintainers ignore their position of authority and only grant one software choice, then AFAIK, then the decentralized model has failed and has instead become a cabal of priests dictating from a position of authority.
As a final note, to those who are going to say "You have always had a choice to run alternative software", you would not be incorrect. But you would be ignoring reality. You would be ignoring the power distribution model of the current dynamics of the core maintainers, and how miners have elected them to make choices. You would be ignoring the rampant censorship in this sub that has disallowed talk of competing software.
And look where that has landed us. Now, in a scenario where the core maintainers have a higher authority than what they even themselves admit is appropriate, we cannot even discuss alternative implementations. This to me further hardens the case that it is imperative for the core maintainers to provide more options to the users so that we may actually get to chose which software we run instead of the cabal deciding for us, and also for the moderators of this forum to discontinue this abhorrent censorship of an agenda that must be discussed.
Please understand that the core maintainers did not ask for this. They are not to be blamed for being put in this situation by the miners. But also by specifically choosing to not respond to the change of authority, they are allowing a power change to occur which is against the original ideology of the decentralized nature of bitcoin. If miners are no longer voting with their hash power on which software they will run, if they are saying "you choose and we will run it" then you cannot claim it is decentralized and action must be taken to prevent this redistribution of power.
submitted by GentlemenHODL to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Is there a point at which the core devs will concede, and include support for BIP101 to avoid a messy hard fork?

If BitcoinXT usage never hits 75%, it'll be clear that the support is not there, and things will stay as-is. The core devs would win and 1MB blocks would be here until a new BIP and consensus is reached.
However, if in the weeks leading up to January 2016 (the earliest a fork could occur under the rules set up by XT), if we see something like 90% support, including major exchanges, mining pools, and nodes, will the core devs concede and include BIP101 into core to avoid a potential messy situation?
submitted by gizram84 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Power distribution and policy decision. How can we, the users, have a vote in what options we are given to uphold the original ideology of bitcoin?

The recent scaling at HK was a eye opener for a lot of people. We had > 90% of hashing power via pool operators standing on one stage, answering questions.
One thing that was very clear, to many people who were present and those who watched, is that the miners were all consistent in their answers in regards to direction on blocksize:
They want the core maintainers of the software to make the hard decisions in regards to blocksize. They are essentially giving up their vote, saying "we want you to choose for us".
Let us look at the current distribution of power:
The power distribution is listed in a relevant order here. Everyone understands that the miners a key group in the power distribution. Without network security bitcoin is worthless, so the direction that miners take will be the winning software choice. They are much higher on the decision making chain, only a step beneath the maintainers from the Top down perspective of maintainers providing software, and then the voting mechanism to choose which software is run.
Its more so the miners that get to chose the software than the users, and it is important to understand this power dynamic. The miners will chose the majority as its in their economic interests, and if we only have one option from our core maintainers, there can only be one choice. Ignoring the power of the core maintainers in this position of authority is to appeal to delusion. Their vote counts more, as well as everyone knows, than a competitor. Add a mining power allocation and their vote becomes a dictatorship.
The core maintainers prefer to take a neutral stance, stating it is the users which decide which software is run. They stay out of economic decisions and leave that to the community at wide to decide.
But if the power distribution model has been disrupted, and the miners have allocated their voting power to the core maintainers, does that change the position of authority for the core maintainers? Are they not then in a position of dictatorship, knowing that the option they give is the option that will succeed?
In this event, I would state that the only way for the core maintainers to balance the power distribution is to provide multiple options for the community to decide upon. Any single solution they provide, given the context of the miners allocating their voting decision, is going to be the winning decision. This action cannot be ignored as it represents a cabal and takes away the decentralized nature of bitcoin. This is literally a point of failure within the ecosystem, one so large that we must hash it out and make our voice heard, otherwise this can be manipulated in the future to undesirable outcomes.
Can the core maintainers ignore this position and continue to provide only one solution? Currently we have reached a rough consensus that the way forward is going to be based on gmaxwell's plan, which calls for a implementation of SW as a softwork, and keeping the traditional blocksize at 1mb. You can see current voting here
In this, I wholeheartedly agree with jgarzik and his direction, which he has voiced publicly but this specific quote was mentioned in private:
"Maintainers should come up with a menu of possibilities and let the community have a voice in choosing. There needs to be more communication to users and more choices given."
I brought up the issue of contentious hardforks, and how core maintainers may have a moral and economic responsibility to not submit those to public in fear of forking the community at large. His response:
"IMO it is done in stages - try to measure consensus - roll out - measure adoption and have fallbacks (failure scenarios) plotted out. Each point - merge / release / initial adoption / wide adoption provides opportunity for feedback and further consensus measuring -before- a chain fork. All the block size increases require 80-90% hashpower lock-in, at a minimum and miners tend to be conservative, following, not leading, consensus. Miners want to stick with the economic majority, because that maximizes the value of their bitcoin income."
What this means, is that if we were given two options, say potentially:
This would allow the users to truly have a voice. So long as the core maintainers have a majority of authority granted to them, they cannot ignore that they have a over-wielding reach of power. The only way they can distribute that power is by giving the users more choices.
Since a hardfork would require a non-contentious event, then allocating a 95% activation threshold removes that argument. If there are multiple proposals out there in the wild, then it does not matter so long as all play by the same rules. And they will all play by the same rules so long as there is a 95% threshold on activation!
All this would do would be to grant users the choice of which software they wish to run, as initially envisioned by satoshi and continued by the bitcoin community at large. So long as the core maintainers ignore their position of authority and only grant one software choice, then AFAIK, then the decentralized model has failed and has instead become a cabal of priests dictating from a position of authority.
As a final note, to those who are going to say "You have always had a choice to run alternative software", you would not be incorrect. But you would be ignoring reality. You would be ignoring the power distribution model of the current dynamics of the core maintainers, and how miners have elected them to make choices. You would be ignoring the rampant censorship in this sub that has disallowed talk of competing software.
And look where that has landed us. Now, in a scenario where the core maintainers have a higher authority than what they even themselves admit is appropriate, we cannot even discuss alternative implementations. This to me further hardens the case that it is imperative for the core maintainers to provide more options to the users so that we may actually get to chose which software we run instead of the cabal deciding for us, and also for the moderators of this forum to discontinue this abhorrent censorship of an agenda that must be discussed.
Please understand that the core maintainers did not ask for this. They are not to be blamed for being put in this situation by the miners. But also by specifically choosing to not respond to the change of authority, they are allowing a power change to occur which is against the original ideology of the decentralized nature of bitcoin. If miners are no longer voting with their hash power on which software they will run, if they are saying "you choose and we will run it" then you cannot claim it is decentralized and action must be taken to prevent this redistribution of power.
submitted by GentlemenHODL to btc [link] [comments]

About the spoofing attack: Why it's not really a problem

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming here that XT is a surefire success - the Core team can, for example, adopt BIP100 next week and the XT movement will be out of steam on that day. That being said, this post is to address the juvenile "call to spoofing" by a few jokers, and no less than the honorable developer Adam Back himself.
In this post, I'll attempt to describe the spoofing attack, and why I don't think it's a big problem.
What is spoofing?
Spoofing, in this context, is fanatical Core supporters pretending to be BitcoinXT on the network by identifying as such. As Core and XT are almost identical in behavior (except get_UTXO, which is an ability they can spoof too, and double-spend-alert -relay, which is not a reliable indicator) before the blocksize increase, there is no good way to catch a spoofing node or miner at this point.
The "spoofing attack" can be divided into two types: Spoofing nodes, and spoofing hashpower (blocks).
Spoofing nodes
To understand why spoofing XT nodes is not a huge problem, one must understand the whole point of running "make a statement" XT nodes in the first place. Always keep this in mind:
Running an XT node is by no means a binding vote; it is merely a statement, a protest if you will, where the more nodes there are the more attention we get from the big economic actors. One does not trigger anything by running an XT node.
Knowing that, it is easy to see why spoofing node (e.g. running "noXT") in an attempt to derail the movement is fruitless: It's like joining a political rally, holding the same signs as the other participants, but secretly saying to yourself: "I actually hate the cause, so my presence discredits the rally!"
Nope, sir, all you did was adding to the number and making the voice stronger. Thank you for your service!
Of particular annoyance to the XT movement is the people running pseudonodes: These people hold various claims like:
We will search XT nodes and Sybil them exclusively!
We will run lots of them to discredit you!
For the second point, see above. For the first point, that is unfortunate... until you realize that you are actually running a tx-validating full node, which makes you Sybil-resistant unless your entire connection is compromised (making you unable to sync blocks/finding valid nodes; in any case you still won't lose a satoshi). In addition, if this becomes widespread and known, it makes the other side look worse while achieving nothing for their cause. Ignore and trot along!
Spoofing hashpower (blocks)
This is a more serious threat: The threat, as described by Adam Back, is to fake mining XT blocks, push towards 75%, then pull away last minute leaving the minority of XT miners stranded (not to mention the ecosystem shattered and broken, but apparently they don't care).
This sounds scary at first, but it's actually extremely difficult to pull off for two reasons. Allow me to explain.
First, know that in the event of an XT success, it's extremely likely that the economic majority will announce their support before any significant hashpower vote for us. Miners are in it for the profit, not too many of them are going to risk coming over unless they know the purchasing power is on our side. Most will need to see Bitpay, Coinbase, the DNMs, Electrum, libbitcoin (and associated wallets), major exchanges et. al. move over before they make the call.
If we got that going we already won, miner supermajority is just a formality. It's extremely unlikely that the spoof-attackers can convince a large amount of hashpower to go against the ecosystem and destroy their own livelihood.
Second: What if we disregard the ecosystem, and the spoofers really want to prematurely push us over the edge before we get 75%? Surely they can then move away last-minute, leaving our allies to dry and the attacking miners some potential profit, as they trick their competitors onto a losing chain? Maybe they can convince enough miners to disregard the destruction of ecosystem to pull this off!
This sounds serious, however it'll be so difficult to pull off, I won't lose any sleep over that. And that is because of an often-overlooked feature in the BIP101 activation mechanism: There is a 2-week grace period after 75% supermajority before the first 1.1MB block can be mined. This, combined with the fact that the activation trigger is 75% and not 51%, seals the fate of spoofing attacks.
Consider that XT only needs >50% hashing power supporting it "to the end" to end up on the winning chain. So presumably to make XT lose, the spoofers shall attack when some ~40% hashpower is XT. This will mean that they'll need some 30%++ hashpower joining them on the spoof (higher if they attack earlier!). I don't know how they're gonna convince such a huge chunk of miners to risk the entire ecosystem to pull this off, but let's say they did. Let's say, ideally, they attack when XT has 48% honest hashpower and they spoof-attack with 27%. Bam. BIP101 triggered!
Except we don't immediately start making 1.1MB blocks; there are two weeks. During the two weeks the spoofers have two options:
1) Drop out, revert identification to Core and laugh. This might sound like a victory, except... the miners gain nothing, because the moment they switch back, it'll be very transparent that the fork is not going forward, and XT miners can go back to Core at their leisure, not losing anything. The two weeks are not just a grace period for people to join XT, they also allow XT miners to detect danger and revert. So... no profit for spoofer. Miners would have to be pretty stupid to believe this strategy.
2) Keep spoofing until the end of the two weeks, switch only at 23:59:59 on the very last day. That sounds scary! Until you realize that every day they keep spoofing, there's an XT-faced, 75%++ strong Roko's Basilisk staring at the other 25% of "Core faithfuls". They have no way of knowing any better: The spoofers will have to behave exactly like XT to maintain their ruse. Any sane miner in the leftover 25% will switch over; at the end of two weeks, the spoofers no longer matter as we have already gained majority. Spoofing will ironically ensure our victory.
"But... but what if they collude with those too? What if 50%+ of the hashpower collude in secret to attack us in a concerted, deceitful fashion?"
Well, guys, that's called a 51% attack on the network, a fundamental weakness of the Bitcoin protocol. If that collusion is pulled off over a long time, anything can be pulled off; the ecosystem will lose all its value and crash to zero. If profit-minded miners can be somehow convinced into doing that, Bitcoin itself, the assumption that profit incentives will keep a majority of actors in check, fundamentally failed. I don't think anyone here believes that to be the case, no?
TL;DR: There are several ways XT can be attacked via spoofing, but none of them makes sense if you consider how the movement works and how incentives work for miners. Stay strong, sleep tight, keep your full node running.
submitted by imaginary_username to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Nyancoins Megapost - Central Link Collection

Edit: Going to finally start an overhaul on this (April 23rd, 2016); it's been six months since the last edit. I'm going to go from current back, so there's going to be a gap between this top, new stuff and what's below until I finish the update.
I'm just going to have the last six months all shoved together into one large update here. There's weak categorization, but basically just think of it as a huge list. In general, the newer items will be higher within a given category than the older items. I apologize if I left anything out which people would like to see included. Some things I considered more of a temporary update than something relevant months later, but just PM me and I'll add anything requested!
We're currently in a quiet low point. Nothing catastrophic is happening, but we are relatively weak. I call it "the best nadir" because if this is as bad as it gets, we're doing alright. The price is down to 4 satoshi now, which is the lowest sustained price since the beginning of the revival. I'm going on a year behind my original goal for releasing NYAN2, still stuck on a new build computer (alternately time and energy to cripple together a build system out of what I have available).
One major new element: I've set a goal for us to have a mission to visit the site of Apollo 17 in twenty years. This is basically a new dimension. For the first ten years, I envision this as a purely "paper program", doing research on past space programs, in particular Mercury through Apollo, but any and all launch platforms and spacecraft which have been done. We may additionally seek to gain additional education (for instance, I would like aerospace engineering and material science undergraduate degrees at a minimum; we also are going to need experienced test pilots).
Space Program Initial Vision: [NYAN 2035] We must send a mission to visit the site of the Apollo 17 plaque on the Moon
Also, I've replaced the previous "Nekonauts of the Month" competition with a "Who Wants to be a Nillionaire?". The major difference is that rather than relying upon me to track everything, the expectation is that Nekonauts will sign up and self-report accomplishments.
Nyan Projects
[Hype] Browser based MMORPG accepting Nyancoins for member items: KojoSlayer's latest foray into nyan video game development! I've seen an early preview and it reminds me of a primitive Runescape (meant as a compliment)
Fun Posts
Insert NyanDisk 1 into Drive A:: NyanDOS!
Nyan like it's 1999 ....: telnet into nyan!
[breaking news] Nyancoins will be bought out by Garza in a last-ditch attempt to save Paycoin - April fool's post
Trumpchain on Twitter: "It can happen. Our blockchain has tremendous potential. We have tremendous people. #MakeTheBlockchainGreatAgain" - Terrific shitpost; really fantastic!
Join the Nekonauts today! - Cool nyan poster
"I really hope Satoshi is finally dumping and declaring that, like, Nyancoin is the true bearer of his vision." - CountOneInterrupt - My favorite idea ever
Nyancoin Zen - So cute. This may be my favorite nyan image ever for its understatement and beauty.
High Definition Nyan up close - Amusing
Making PC more Nyan-Friendly! - cute; amusing. Such nyan!
Typical Nyancoiner breakfast. - DobbsCoin is great with this stuff!
[meta] [misadventures of coinaday] [Pizza Boy Adventures] Late Night Pizza - Just a little choose-your-own-delivery I wrote during my stint as a pizza delivery boy.
I don't know how I wasn't aware of this site before - I still can't believe there's an entire site for this!
Get NYAN
Want more NYAN? Faucet Mrai and trade to me for NYAN (and then hodl!): What is says on the tin. The faucet is down temporarily at time of this writing, but it'll be back up before I update this section likely. The price offered there is low (mailing list mentioning 200-300 satoshi currently; my offer is worth about 2 satoshi currently); I would consider higher, but probably wouldn't pay those apparent market rates (no actual exchange yet).
Force Multipliers
Content about the difference a determined person can make. Intended as inspiration.
[Force Multiplier] [Original Content] [pdf; 23 pages] Archimedes and the Siege of Syracuse - Previously unpublished paper I wrote for a history course in college.
[Force Multipliers] [Military History] Julius Caesar's Greatest Military Victory (Video; 10 minutes) - An explanation of achieving victory in an apparently unwinnable situation.
[Force Multipliers] [Naval History] Korea: Admiral Yi - I: Keep Beating the Drum - Extra History - Incredible loyalty and dedication from this greatest Admiral saved his country
Philosophy
Content which fits the themes of fun, self-improvement, and service to others.
Wikipedia essay: WikiLove - I think Wikipedia's policies are in a lot of ways something to look up to. It's true that they're stuck in bureaucracy now, and have driven away many experts, but they function and their policies have helped to give some structure to the anarchy.
[US history and macroeconomics] [59 minute video] Thom Hartmann, "The Crash of 2016" - Interesting video. I think the predicted outcome is something of a longshot, but it's interesting to me that he called Sanders as a major factor in the election years ago.
Taylor Mali, "Words and Their Consequences" (68 min video) - Poetry and philosophy
We Are One - Didn't get any attention at the time, but this is a general statement about the power of people working together.
A Message of Hope for the World - What's the point of Nyancoins? To inspire people.
A brief word on censorship - tl;dr: Censorship is bad, m'kay?
Who Owns Nyancoins? - Hodlers.
To The Moon is Not Enough: 100 Year Planning - About the importance of an unlimited time horizon. We build to last.
General
Catch-all category. Okay, this category got out of hand. I should do a second round later and break this out into a few different ones.
The best argument I've heard so far for keeping the 1MB cap in Bitcoin - I still think it would have been better for Bitcoin to grow, but this is the strongest argument for its stagnation in capacity that I've seen.
[conceptual design] How we should expect 100,000 transactions in a minute (or second?) to be handled - This is about the idea that we should expect to be able to handle large loads without crashing. Pretty basic. Related to an /cryptocurrency post I'd made: 100,000 Transactions Per Second: How Do We Get There?, which gives a very high-level overview of one way to reach high throughput capacity using blockchains.
Interesting cryptocurrency to try: raiblocks, protocol without transaction fees or block rewards - I think Raiblocks will be a valuable "companion coin" to Nyancoins ultimately. I don't know how exactly that'll work, but I believe that good cryptocurrency communities should make alliances. If nothing else, we can be valuable to each other as the "loyal opposition", critics who want to see success.
Coin-a-Year: Nyancoin : link to /CryptoCurrency post - Summary of the first year or so of NYAN revival
[far future concept] Nyanshares, Nythereumbits, and all-in on 37 rainbow - A double post: first part describes a possible spin-off, hybrid, 'companion coin' we could make in future years. The second part talks about what a gamble NYAN is.
NyanCoin compilation guide and downsizing nyan.space / NyanChain [semi-meta] - Has a link to a guide for compiling nyancoind on servers.
[meta] [misadventures of coinaday] Stuck in the Dihydrogen Monoxide - Another in a series of coinaday posts proving "play stupid games; win stupid prizes"
[Data] Faucet Stats - KojoSlayer's faucet stats
Thing to do a thing that can't do that thing.... - Bit of code for pulling BTC/NYAN feed from Cryptopia.
Fresh builds, coming up! - initial report from vmp32k on attempting to modernize the codebase
DigiShield - suggestion for different difficulty algorithm
BIP101 implementation to be made available for altcoins - prohashing announcing that they will have a Scrypt BIP101 implementation; this is planned to be our base for NYAN3
Year 1: Acquisition and Triage ; Year 2: Acquisition and Build - Optimistic; in reality, year two of the revival has largely been me just trying to survive. Hopefully more acquisition and build as the year goes on.
[technical] [financial] Price Stability and Consistent Hashing - Basic theory. If we have consistent prices, we'll have more consistent hashing.
[technical] [forking] [NYAN3] Should running old defaults be considered a vote against a hard fork or should the veto need to be explicit? / General voting discussion - What it says on the tin. I haven't gotten feedback on this yet. It's far in the future, but I think it's a critical question. I'm not sure which way is correct.
2015 in review: overview - Initial summary of the previous year; written before the Coin-a-Year post which did similar
[meta] [finance] [misadventures of coinaday] Paying Debts - Since writing this, I've gone further into debt. I need to get my personal finances together this year, for my own sake, for the sake of those I owe, and for the sake of Nyancoins.
Countdown to the Second Halving - The current block is 1168851 as I write this; we've got less than 350,000 more blocks until the third halving!
I updated the major risks page for Nyancoins to include mention of the fork bug and 'time warp'. Please review and comment. - bolded for visibility; I consider the risks document and making sure that we inform potential buyers as much as possible to be a critical requirement for us
[technical] [security] Time warp, fork bug, disclosure policies, and practical results: a working system despite flaws - Discussion of the success of Nyancoins as a working system despite its technical vulnerabilities.
Zero Fees (*) - Discussion of the role of zero fee transactions and why I consider them important
[finance] [meta] [Misadventures of coinaday] overdrafts and consequences / Cryptopia 1sat Dump - Discussion of my stupidity and its consequences on Nyancoins' financial health
[technical] NIP 1: Base NYAN3 on XT - I consider this critical. We will make a statement about not following the path Bitcoin is currently going down. This is not urgent for us because our activity is so low, but it will be part of building a strong foundation for the future.
Hodling Update: 30% - I haven't done the math recently. I'm probably within 5% of this, but I don't know if I've gone up or down. I haven't given away a whole lot, but I have put no new money into Nyancoins for months from being so broke. I've still gained some millions more from when my 5 satoshi bids got hit though.
[finance] Up? Down? Horizontal? - Considering 30 - It's pretty sad how far we are from 30 satoshi now (4 satoshi at the moment). I believe we'll get it back ultimately, but the revival certainly hasn't had the financial success I'd hoped.
Dice soft launch - Not sure of the current state here. Check with KojoSlayer.
State of the NYAN October 2015: An interlude for gratitude and yearning for more - I should get back to doing these monthly eventually. Right now it's quiet enough that there doesn't seem to be a real need.
[financial] NYAN vs DOGE as a long-term store of value - What it says. I believe that the lower supply inflation and smaller supply of NYAN will ultimately lead to NYAN trading above DOGE (currently trading at less than 10:1).
[finance] [stats] [gaming] Breaking the Bank: Risk-of-Ruin, Dice Games, and Basic Logic - I'm pretty proud of this one. By having more money than god, and a screwed up default max bet rule, I was able to beat the house. 8-)
100M - Talking about the remaining supply and the implications.
I think I'm done with this update (at least getting the new content in; I have not changed the old text and content, which is everything below).
Since I can only have one thing stickied at a time, but there are a lot of different things going on, I've switched over to having one main link collection post. And this is it.
I'll update this periodically (I'll try to do a major update once a month) and might replace it at some point. It'll have general discussion of the context behind why these various threads are significant.
I'm doing August and September together for Nekonaut awards and updates here since I got a bit busy at work. NYAN2 is released as a first-draft, but I haven't built it yet (nor done final changes and fixes). I need a computer with more RAM than what I have available to me now. However, I'm quite satisfied with the performance of NYAN1.2, ancient though it may be, so I'm not treating it as an emergency.
The biggest news is that we are now listed on cryptopia.co.nz ! They are a great community and provide better ecosystem support than most exchanges: they include a pool and explorer along with the exchange. And their exchange has a lot of basepairs, with NYAN/BTC, NYAN/UNO, NYAN/DOGE, and NYAN/DOT being relatively active, NYAN/LTC being quiet, and the other two (popularcoin and feathercoin) being unfamiliar to me and generally unused.
Oh, also, when I've taken a look at it, the Nyanchain seems to be running smoothly. I haven't been watching too closely, but the status page is usually showing all green. I especially like seeing the high number of connections (generally close to 30). [Comment from July version; still accurate. I should get automated metrics on the Nyanchain someday, but in the meantime, it seems to be moving pretty smoothly anecdotally.]
Top stories from August and Septemberish
Nekonauts of the Months, August and September 2015 - Combined awards, three awards for 1M as a result, and such. Just check it out. :-)
New IRC channel and tipbot - This came about during the listing process; we are now at #nyan2
WE ARE LIVE! Cryptopia added us just now!! - Culmination of the process of getting listed on Cryptopia. After leading in user votes and DOT votes after the first couple days, the admins decided to add us. So as I count it, we won three votes. :-)
Looking good on Cryptopia so far - My early reaction to the exchange.
The past few days. - Repost of a classic, which is always a good idea in NYAN, given our rich archives.
Miners We Need YOU! - Brief discussion by KojoSlayer about the importance of miners to the Nyancoin ecosystem.
Nyancoind Dockerfile (for the tech-nyans) - Cool demo by vmp32k
Nyancat all up on your Vim command line. - Cool xpost from /vim.
[financial] I hit a positive balance on Cryptsy-NYAN again - I started buying on Cryptsy. I've since withdrawn from Cryptsy and am working on eliminating my balances there, but I've got a lot of altcoins to consolidate yet.
100M - A discussion of the remaining supply to be generated (now under 100 million more coins)
Top stories from July
Gitian Build Instructions - !!! This is exactly what I was trying to figure out. With this roadmap, we should be able to help others build *coins with gitian as well as provide a solid introduction to our own community members. This should be linked and submitted for feedback elsewhere; I should report back to the Litecoin thread with a link to this for discussion. I cannot overstate how important I find this contribution.
Nekonauts of the Month, July 2015 - Still going with this. I may not always get this perfect, but I hope that it will help add some motivation and recognition to the community who is building the next generation of Nyancoins.
Ɲyancoins for Nekonauts! [designs] - Some logos and concept art; a start by W7phone; we hope to see more of this type of thing!
[hypothetical] What would it take for us to be able to start our own Nyan exchanges? - tl;dr: Let's get setup on some decentralized exchanges!
Linux Nekonauts: Building nyancoind - I should get this in the sidebar somewhere. An excellent first post by gentlenyan !
Top stories from June
Nekonauts of the Month, June 2015 - Latest round of awards; I plan to keep doing this each month for as long as I can
[community] You are a leader of Nyancoins / Herding Cats: Leading Leaders; Leadership in a Decentralized Community - A discussion of the importance of you to the success of Nyancoins
vmp32k launches a beta of a faucet - When is this going live?
kojoslayer launches a faucet
Various post on mining being stuck - we are still a bit spotty, but it seems like it might be a bit better. We could use something more than just an instantaneous status page; if someone wants to make something which does statistical analysis of the performance of the nyanchain, that would be awesome.
Broke through the 40 satoshi ceiling, and Plagiarizing great speeches in history and claiming to have a community mandate: Coin-a-Day writes inspirational pap as we stand on the verge of breaking through the 50 satoshi ceiling and envisions the glorious future ahead - and rather more. The price dipped back down on Cryptsy since, but we had a nice rise for a while. I'm hoping that when we get an exchange we have confidence in, we'll see more buying again.
Warning: Cryptsy does not process large NYAN withdrawals - This is why I recommend not using Cryptsy; plus this
Top stories from May
First off: Ɲyancoins needs YOU! - This is a discussion of how all of us have something we can do for Nyancoins, and how improving your own life is absolutely one of those things.
Nekonauts of the Month, May 2015 - This is my first month running this competition. I'm looking to recognize people who are active and contributing to the community and to give them NYAN to help further whatever they'd like to do next.
The network is stable! - Thanks to a new miner, spydud22, we are showing all green on status!
Wow, very large chunk of NYAN at 40 satoshi (6 million) - The title is outdated; there's about double this volume now. [Edit: And now the title is accurate again.]
Initial notes and thoughts on the Nyancoins client update - I've identified the approximate version of Litecoin that Nyancoins is based on and looked at a diff. It looks reasonable and do-able. I haven't yet looked at the latest branch on which I'll apply these changes.
Nyancoins 2.0
https://github.com/mathwizard1232/nyancoins/tree/nyancoins2 - first draft of NYAN2
(intentional duplication from top stories for July; I consider it that important): Gitian Build Instructions - !!! This is exactly what I was trying to figure out. With this roadmap, we should be able to help others build *coins with gitian as well as provide a solid introduction to our own community members. This should be linked and submitted for feedback elsewhere; I should report back to the Litecoin thread with a link to this for discussion. I cannot overstate how important I find this contribution.- earlier working notes
Cross-platform Gitian builds - Discussion about getting Gitian builds to work for Mac without access to a Mac.
Initial notes and thoughts on the Nyancoins client update - Right now I haven't had time to do much more on this, but I need to work on doing the Litecoin gitian build yet.
Gitian Build - jwflame's initial notes on trying the gitian build
DLC
Distributed Library Coin; stealing^Wrepurposing the ideas of others - Introducing the concept; basically a virtual lending library for the community; Learned Optimism is offered.
[DLC] Siege of Earth - Second post, offering Siege of Earth, a classic sci fi tale
Minecraft
[Idea] Minecraft NyanCoins - KojoSlayer is making a cool Minecraft Nyancoins faucet sort of thing (get Nyancoins for playing Minecraft).
[Sneak Peak] Nyancoin Minecraft Server - This project is moving forward quite quickly! See also /NyanCoinsMC for more information.
[Beta] Launch Nyancoins Minecraft Server : NyanCoinsMC - BOOM! I'm amazed at how quickly this has gotten setup. Go check it out!
Background / theory
Overview of major risks of buying Nyancoins - I've tried to collect every risk I could think of in this one place. This is important reading before investing.
Nyan's core principles and why they matter
draft one of Cold Storage 101: How to secure your coins for long-term hodling - I need to incorporate the suggestions still, but between the article and the comments, this is decent.
I will work harder: in which Coinaday reports for duty - My statement that this is going to a new level for me: I'm considering this my dream job now, rather than just my hobby. I'm dedicating myself to serving this community as best I can.
[community] You are a leader of Nyancoins / Herding Cats: Leading Leaders; Leadership in a Decentralized Community - This is a discussion of the importance of each individual, in particular you, to this revival.
A really good read about fiduciary duties in running an exchange - discussion of the responsibility one takes on in managing money for others
[rant] In response to "there is only BTC [and maybe LTC [and maybe DOGE]] AND DEFINITELY NOTHING ELSE MATTERS" - Possibly amusing rant.
My most worthless and most valuable coins: Comparing DIME and 42 - A discussion about interpreting spot price in context
[theory] Bitcoin discussion of hard forks - Talking about the risks involved with a hard fork
Rooting for LTC's Rally to Hold: Nyancoins and the Cryptocurrency Market - Nyancoins do not stand alone. Although it's easy to see the rise of another cryptocurrency as weakening us, because we might trade lower against them temporarily, I believe that a stronger CryptoCurrency market as a whole will be important for our long-term health.
[financial] Cryptocurrency valuation models: Considering Nyancoins as a zero-coupon bond against the community
Classic Posts
Why Nyancoin will hit $1/NYAN (and much more). We're going to space, and you're invited! - This is an infamous post by americanpegasus. I believe it was actually someone mocking him in /bitcoin by linking to this which first made me aware that Nyancoins existed, and got the idea in my head that it was a deadcoin (from seeing a post/comments on the sub at the time which claimed that). So the dream of this post was actually so bold that it brought it back from the grave, because it was bold enough to be mocked, and that mockery eventually led me to investigate it, and that investigation led me to fall in love.
1Ɲ >= 1Đ - This is a vision I have, that we shall rise above DOGE. This is not a dig against DOGE but merely a statement about the growth I expect to see us have. There are about 500x as many Dogecoins as there are Nyancoins, so even if we remain significantly smaller we can easily pass their unit price. We've done so briefly previously but are currently below this mark.
We choose to go to the Moon - This is my manifesto about why I am doing this. Cribbed from JFK's moon speech, it is meant to express that it is because of, not in spite of, the challenges that we face that I am here. This started out as a personal challenge. While I certainly would like to get rich off of this, the reason I chose to pursue this is because if we do then, then we're awesome badasses that people can be impressed by.
The original Nyancoins intro video - wasn't really sure where to categorize this
Older stories
I'll move stories down here as they get older. For now it's the block stoppage stuff as that seems to have stabilized.
Holy shit, 22 hours since the last block. At this rate, I'm going to have to start solving hashes by hand... - This was my post about the block stoppage.
Difficulty has spiked again; if we hit another stall I'll try the transaction fee trick again - Another block stoppage, and a record of my attempt to use the same trick to break it loose again (transaction fee incentive).
I'm ready to give up on life; in which coinaday finally has his full-blown mental breakdown. So long, and thanks for all the rainbows! - My personal mental breakdown. Just listed here because it made an impact. Also, it was an amazing response from the community which meant a lot to me.
Fuck it; encore une fois - My reaction afterward, saying that I'll give things another shot.
GFS
Disregard the below: GFS has been down for a few months and probably won't be back. At one point, this project had been offered to me, and perhaps I should have taken it, but I felt like I was already heavily committed here and couldn't take that on as well. It's a shame that no one managed to keep it running though. I really liked the idea.
Disregard the below: it's back down again, last I checked. Not sure what to link on that. The new bot got mildly political again / referenced being a shadowbanned user, and bam. I'm not sure where this is going to go now, if anywhere. Although I suppose the on-blockchain stuff isn't affected, and I'd wager go1dfish will do something again.
/GetFairShare will be attempting another distribution today; go try it out! - GetFairShare is back! Go get free money!
I don't really understand what's going on, but apparently the bot used for /GetFairShare got banned - Some background on GFS having gone down
I think that this will continue to be useful as we gain a larger and larger volume of posts and help me not have to worry about burying something significant posted a couple weeks back or something.
Also, right now I'm just gleaning from the frontpage, but I'll add in some great classic posts too.
Let me know in the comments if there are other posts you'd like to see added here.
submitted by coinaday to nyancoins [link] [comments]

How to Exchange Bitcoin to Bank Account (TUTORIAL) - YouTube How To Exchange Your TBC to BITCOIN 2020 - YouTube Best Crypto Exchanges To Buy Bitcoin & Trade ... How To Send Bitcoin to an Exchange BipCoin Miner Somehow Buys Worse Money

In January 2016, BIP101 was removed from Bitcoin XT’s protocol in favor of a one-time block size increase to 2 MB, which preceded the rapid collapse of support for Bitcoin XT. By January 2017, less than 30 Bitcoin XT nodes were maintained by miners — down from approximately 650 one year prior. Exchange all exchanges bit-x bit2c bitbay bitcoin.co.id bitcoincentral bitcoinde bitcoinsnorway bitcurex bitfinex bitflyer bithumb bitmarketpl bitmex bitquick bitso bitstamp btcchina btce btcmarkets campbx cex.io clevercoin coinbase coinfloor exmo gemini hitbtc huobi itbit korbit kraken lakebtc localbitcoins mercadobitcoin okcoin paymium ... Bitcoin Exchange Guide is a hyperactive hybrid of heavy-handed cryptocurrency content curation creators from christened community contributors who focus on delivering today's bitcoin news, cryptoasset user guides and latest blockchain updates. Latest News. The truth is people believing in big blocks were the majority of the original Bitcoin BTC community. Polls on bitcointalk.org showed support for big block plans like BIP101 at over 80%. However, not everyone was the same in terms of passion and purity for the original big-block vision outlined by Satoshi. BIP101 is a proposed relaxation of the upper limit for a Bitcoin block size. It sets the block size maximum at 8 MB in November 2016 and doubles the size about once every two years. In this proposal, it will be 64 MB in 2022, and by 2036 the maximum block size will be raised to 8 GB.

[index] [17912] [21228] [25354] [16150] [22453] [29645] [24926] [27541] [5119] [33838]

How to Exchange Bitcoin to Bank Account (TUTORIAL) - YouTube

Top Cryptocurrency Exchanges in 2019 - grouped up from best to worst. https://boxmining.com/top-cryptocurrency-exchanges-2019/ #Cryptocurrency #Exchanges #Bi... best site to buy bitcoins, bitcoin setup, where to purchase bitcoin, bitcoin qr code, btc address, where can i buy bitcoin, how to send money, easiest way to buy bitcoins, buy bitcoin now, bitcoin ... Bitcoin Exchange Portsmouth 97 views. 0:19. A old man's advice - Duration: 10:20. Bernard Albertson Recommended for you. 10:20. Steve Jobs introduces iPhone in 2007 - Duration: 10:20. bitcoins buy, bitcoins exchange, bitcoins exchange rate, bitcoins gbp, bitcoins market, bitcoins markets, bitcoins price, bitcoins price chart, bitcoins to gbp, buy a bitcoin, buy bitcoin, buy ... Want to make money online? Join here - https://www.beermoneyforum.com/ Exchange Bitcoin to Bank Account How to transfer Bitcoin to Bank Account

#