Yes, Bitcoin was always supposed to be gold 2.0: digital gold that you could use like cash, so you could spend it anywhere without needing banks and gold notes to make it useful. So why is Core trying to turn it back into gold 1.0? (112 points, 85 comments)
In October 2010 Satoshi proposed a hard fork block size upgrade. This proposed upgrade was a fundamental factor in many people's decision to invest, myself included. BCH implemented this upgrade. BTC did not. (74 points, 41 comments)
what do the following have in common: Australia, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Liberia, Namibia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Caribbean Netherlands, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Zimbabwe (47 points, 20 comments)
BCH is victim to one of the biggest manipulation campaigns in social media: Any mention of BCH triggered users instantly to spam "BCASH".. until BSV which is a BCH fork and almost identical to it pre-November fork popped out of nowhere and suddenly social media is spammed with pro-BSV posts. (131 points, 138 comments)
LocalBitcoins just banned cash. It really only goes to show everything in the BTC ecosystem is compromised. (122 points, 42 comments)
The new narrative of the shills who moved to promoting bsv: Bitcoin was meant to be government-friendly (33 points, 138 comments)
PSA: The economical model of the Lightning Network is unsound. The LN will support different coins which will be interconnected and since the LN tokens will be transacted instead of the base coins backing them up their value will be eroded over time. (14 points, 8 comments)
94 points: ThomasZander's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
87 points: tjonak's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
86 points: money78's comment in Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]"
83 points: discoltk's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
79 points: jessquit's comment in Ways to trigger a Shitcoin influencer Part 1: Remind them that’s it’s very likely they got paid to shill fake Bitcoin to Noobs
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.
They've finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - now they're begging for some kind of "compromise". But actually, markets aren't about compromise. Markets are about competition. Markets are about winner-takes-all. And the Bitcoin whitepaper never mentions anything about "compromise". It simply says that 51% of the hashpower determines what is Bitcoin. And as we know - the best coin will win. Which will probably be Bitcoin Unlimited with its market-based blocksizes - and not SegWit with its 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize based on a dangerous anyone-can-spend spaghetti-code soft-fork. Let's review how this played out:
Core/Blockstream accepted $76 million in "fantasy fiat" from the "legacy ledger" of central bankers via their buddies at AXA.
And Core/Blockstream accepted censorship on the sad subreddit of r\bitcoin.
And lo and behold, Core/Blockstream's reliance on fiat funding and central planning and censorship has culminated in this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit, with the following worthless "features" that nobody even wants:
Yet-another centrally-planned 1.7MB maybe-someday blocksize - combined with some random arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" that nobody asked for,
Fixes for low-priority non-problems like malleability and quadratic hashing,
By listening to real people in the actual market, and by following Satoshi's principles as stated in the whitepaper, Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to (surprise! surprise!) offer what real people in the actual market actually want - which is currently:
FlexTrans is much better than SegWit Also, these independent, non-fiat-financed devs developed Flexible Transactions, which is way better than SegWit. Flexible Transactions can easily fix malleability and quadratic hashing - while also introducing a simple, easy-to-use, future-proof tag-based format similar to JSON or HTML permitting future upgrades without the need for a hard fork. So Flexible Transactions provides the same things as SegWit - without the dangerous mess of SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork hack - which Core/Blockstream tried to force on everyone - because they want to take away our right to vote via a hard fork - because they know that if we actually had a hard fork a/k/a full node referendum, everyone would vote against Core/Blockstream. The market wants to decide the blocksize So more and more of the smart, non-Blockstream-aligned miners, starting with ViaBTC and now including many others, have been adopting Bitcoin Unlimited - because they understand that:
Market-based blocksizes are the right, consensus-based mechanism to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling to solve the urgent problems of transaction delays and network congestion - now and in the future
Every increase in the blocksize roughly corresponds to the same increase squared in terms of price
ie 2x bigger blocks will lead to 4x higher price, 3x bigger blocks will correspond with 9x higher price, etc. - which means that bigger blocks will make everyone happy: more profits for miners, and no more high fees or transaction delays for users.
Now Core/Blockstream are starting to bitch and moan and beg about "compromise" And actually, we couldn't answer "Sorry it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to. Because markets and economics and cryptocurrencies aren't about compromises. Markets are about competition - they're about winner-takes-all. Nakamoto Consensus is about 51% of the hashpower decides what the rules are. Imagine if Yahoo Email were to suddenly start begging with Google Mail for "compromise". What would that even mean in the first place?? Yahoo wrote crappy email code - based on their crappy corporate culture - so the market abandoned their crappy (and buggy and insecure) email service. Core/Blockstream is similar in some ways to Yahoo. They wrote crappy code - because they have a crappy "corporate culture" - because they accept millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers at places like AXA - and because they accept censorship on shit-forums like r\bitcoin - which is why they have no clue about the real needs of real people in the real market in the real world. Censorship and fiat made Core/Blockstream fragile and out-of-touch Core/Blockstream devs enjoy the "luxury" of being able to put their head in the sand and hide from the reality of the "shreaking" masses of actual people actually trying to use Bitcoin, because:
They get millions of dollars in fiat shoveled to them by central bankers,
They conduct their "debates" in the fantasy-land of the shit-forum r\bitcoin where all the important comments get deleted and all the intelligent posters got banned long ago - including quotes from Satoshi.
And then (surprise! surprise!) the following happened:
At any moment now, at the Schelling point of our own choosing, more hashpower can also "dump Core" and start using Bitcoin Unlimited - which is why everyone involved with Core/Blockstream is now shitting in their pants.
But in a decentralized, permissionless, open-source system like Bitcoin, there is not a single thing that CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc at their shitty little AXA-funded startup Blockstream or u/theymos and u/bashco on their shitty little censored forum r\bitcoin can do to stop Bitcoin Unlimited from taking over the network - because in open-source and in economics and in markets, the best code and the best cryptocurrency wins. Everyone (except Core/Blockstream) predicted this would happen So now - predictably - the Core/Blockstream devs and their low-information supporters are all running around saying "Nobody could have predicted this!" But actually everyone has been shouting at the top of their lungs predicting this for years - including the most important old-time Bitcoin devs supporting on-chain scaling like Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik who were all "censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed" - plus new-time devs like Peter Rizun u/Peter__R who provided major scaling innovations like XThin - by the vicious drooling toxic authoritarian goons involved with Core/Blockstream. Everyone has been predicting the current delays and congestion and high fees for years, out here in the reality of the marketplace, in the reality of the uncensored forums - away from Core/Blockstream's centralized back-room closed-door fiat-funded censorship-supported PowerPoint presentations in Hong Kong and Silicon Valley, away from years and years of Core/Blockstream's all-talk-no-action scaling stalling conferences. The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about "compromise" and "censorship" and "central planning". The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about yet-another centrally planned blocksize (Now with 1.7MB! SegWit is scaling!TM) which some economically ignorant fiat-funded dev team happened to pull out of their ass and bundle into a radical and irresponsible spaghetti-code SegWit soft-fork. Markets aren't about "compromise". Markets are about competition. As u/ForkiusMaximusrecently pointed out: The market couldn't even give a fuck if it wanted to - because markets and cryptocurrencies are not about the politics of "compromise" - they're about the economics of competition. Markets are about decentralization, and they're about Nakamoto Consensus, where 51% of the hashpower decides the rules and everyone else either gets on the bandwagon or withers away watching their hashpower and coin price sink into oblivion. So, anyone who even brings up the topic of "compromise" is simply showing that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work, and how Nakamoto Consensus works. This actually isn't very surprising. Blockstream CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and all the rest of the so-called "Core devs" and all their low-information hangers-on like the economic idiot Blockstream founder Mark Friedenbach u/maaku7 have never really understood Bitcoin or markets. And that's fine and normal. Plenty of individuals don't understand markets very well. But such people simply lose their own money - and they generally don't get put in charge of losing $20 billion of other people's money. Markets don't need managers or central planners. Markets run very well on their own - and they don't like central planning or censorship. Now Core/Blockstream has finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase So now some people at Core/Blockstream and some of their low-information supporters have have started bitching and moaning and whining about "compromise", as they sink into the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - while their plans are all in shambles, and they've failed in their attempts to hijack our network and our currency. Meanwhile, the Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about a bunch of central planners and censors whining about "compromise". Bitcoin Unlimited just keeps stealing more and more hashpower away from Core - until the day comes when we decide to fork their ass into the garbage heap of shitty, failed alt-coins. Fuck Blockstream/Core and the central bankers and censors they rode in on We told them for years that they were only shooting themselves in the foot with their closed-door back-room fiat-financed wheeling and dealing and their massive censorship. We told them they were only giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with. Now that it's actually happening, we couldn't say "it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to - because there is no such thing as "compromise" in markets or cryptocurrencies. Markets are all about competition And Bitcoin is all about 51% of the hashpower.
Bitcoin Core decided to bet on hard-coded centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize based on a a shitty spaghetti-code soft-fork. That's their choice. They made their bed now let them lie in it.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited decided to bet on market-based blocksizes. And that's the market's choice. Bitcoin Unlimited listened to the market - and (suprise! surprise!) that's why more and more hashpower is now mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks.
Circle has still not responded to Peter Todd about whether they are implementing censorship or surveillance technology
so let me summarise, mike hearn is a developer that has been pushing for blacklists, censorship, supporting regulation .etc he is a crony in the worst way. peter todd is the developer who has done loads for bitcoin. the anonymity techniques in dark wallet were invented by him. he works for the people. mike hearn wants to censor peter todd. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6412027#msg6412027 circle is a new company that is always promoted by the foundation and their crew of people. they always appear at the top of conference lists for finance .etc http://bitcoin2014.com/http://www.bitfin.com/ jeremy allaire (circle ceo), makes statements that bitcoin needs to abandon its libertarian roots. we need to take this plaything away from the anarchists kind of attitude. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-abandons-anti-establishment-wall-street/ mike hearn is working with circle: http://www.coindesk.com/circle-advisory-board-members-burns-appointment/ circle is working on tracking and surveillance tech: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6403720#msg6403720 they refuse to answer questions (this is one of many, can't find the rest): http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/25ou9f/good_morning_reddit_we_know_youve_been_wondering/ mike hearn says the bitcoin dev model needs to change. backing up gavin (chief scientist of bitcoin foundation who is actually more like a figurehead to legitimise the foundation)... this is his way of pushing out elements by formalising the dev process to stop people to participate and take control. http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/28zts3/mike_hearn_interview_quotes_progress_on_the/ circle also this month made a similar statement (on coindesk): http://www.coindesk.com/circle-ceo-jeremy-allaire-issues-challenge-bitcoins-core-developers/ note how he says "unwelcoming to new participants" - same words as mike hearn. if you want to dev bitcoin, there's nothing stopping you. go write code or participate. don't try to assert control. it's all related, bitcoin foundation being official with their claim to legimitimacy but no merit to back that up. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322328.msg3460051#msg3460051 "Just got a call from the bitcoin foundation. They wouldn't go on the record to comment on the article but just kept telling me "off the record" that you lot [Dark Wallet] have no credibility and that a much better story is some venture capitalist yesterday investing $9m in bitcoin..." ~email from journalist when we were doing DarkWallet crowdfunding. btw check this, http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2646ei/bitcoin_foundation_has_4600000_in_assets_90_in/ and despite all those resources they have done jack shit for bitcoin. there is some big corruption going on here. foundation people are all flying all-expense paid fancy trips, paying themselves high salaries whilst most wallet developers and the opensource projects (which people use) in this space are without resources. they have contributed nothing to the community. there's been no proof otherwise besides some minor grants for ~$10k or so. http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/ people are like "oh dear, we need better legislation" without realising the foot in the door danger. it's like the used car salesman who rips you off with an overpriced crappy car which you jump on after "he speaks to the boss" (i.e smokes a ciggy), knocking down his initial high offer. wow! what a bargain! G8 magazine, June 2013 "Protecting digital economies": "If the leaders of the European Union and United States could be convinced to take a lead on these initiatives [banning Bitcoin], that would be a huge contribution to making the internet a safe place for financial transactions. At the same time, it would also strike a blow against those who would try to destroy the fabric of our world’s well-being." JP Morgan, Feb 2014 "The audacity of Bitcoin": "But followers of financial history know the limitation of a system based on a fixed or slow-growing money supply: it imposes uncomfortable financial discipline on governments, households and corporates. [i.e governments, consumers, the corporations" (goes on to talk about how printing dollars was used to fund WW1 and the Vietnam war as a good thing) ECB, Oct 2012 "Virtual currency schemes": "Authorities need to consider whether they intend to formalise or acknowledge and regulate these schemes. In this regard, a likely suggestion could sooner or later involve virtual currency scheme owners registering as financial institutions with their local regulating authorities. This is a similar trajectory to the one PayPal has undergone, as it was granted a banking licence in Luxembourg in 2007 after its service became popular. This is not an easy step, but it looks like the only possible way to strike a proper balance between money and payment innovations on the one hand, and consumer protection and financial stability, on the other." Mark my words. The problem is not with this regulation needing to be fixed. They will probably tone down the proposal and it will be hailed as a victory within the community, yet be another step toward normalisation of their activities. http://www.coindesk.com/ben-lawsky-friend-foe/ "The choice for the regulators is: permit money laundering on the one hand, or permit innovation on the other, and we’re always going to choose squelching the money laundering first. It’s not worth it to society to allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist in order to permit 1000 flowers to bloom on the innovation side.” ~ Ben Lawsky funny he's affiliated with chuck schumer too who is a populist and someone who in the early days was very anti-bitcoin (silk road). i love the whole tone of this propaganda piece which is like "he's such a nice guy". I bet he has good manners too. maybe you all appreciate this article, http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-dark-wallet-developers-plan-for-startup-governments-run-on-bitcoin
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
Disclaimer: This post represents my personal opinions based on the evidence that I have studied over the last few months. Feel free to attack me if you truly have absolutely nothing better to do with your time, but my belief is that in a free society, we should all be allowed to speak our opinions. Mahatma Gandhi's famous quote: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." It is my personal opinion that we have officially entered the "then they fight you" phase of Bitcoin. But here's the thing: many people don't realize that the "fighting" phase doesn't always involve restrictive government regulations, weapons, gunfire, chaos, deaths, militarized police bashing down your door in the middle of the night, tasers, drones, prison sentences, loud sirens, and news coverage. Instead, the "fighting" phase is usually quiet & subtle & understated. The "fighting" phase almost always involves censorship/disinformation, and it almost always involves money. For example, this is how Big Pharma took over all the medical schools in America 100 years ago -- they simply gave millions of dollars to each medical school in exchange for a seat on the Board of Directors to "make sure that their money was being well spent." Eventually, that turned into "we just want to help guide the agenda here". Which eventually turned into, "This is the ONLY accepted agenda, and we will sue you/censor you/discredit you if you dare speak otherwise." This is covered extensively in the 9-part documentary series "The Truth About Cancer". In my opinion, Bitcoin is one of the most important freedom revolutions in all of human civilization, so our opponents are not going to sit back idly and watch it happen. As I mentioned above, one of the key tactics used by governments, banks, and other entities who wish to control people's freedoms is extremely simple & quietly effective: simply give enormous amounts of money to the people who are leading the revolution towards freedom... in exchange for control over the agenda. So, $21 million to the "core developers" via Blockstream here, another several million to the "core developers" via MIT over there... and before you know it, the entire freedom revolution has been completely derailed. G. Edward Griffin talks about this age-old tactic (which has been used for hundreds of years) around the 26 minute mark in this video on freedom: https://vimeo.com/122392195 So the fighting against Bitcoin is being done as "quietly" as possible:
Censorship on the highest-profile Bitcoin discussion forums. Spreading disinformation instead of real information.
Restricting the block size to an artificially low & unusable level. (Remember that Satoshi only put in the block size temporarily as a temporary security fix until the block size restriction could be completely lifted later.) As Mike Hearn said, "Developer consensus is a lie."
Satoshi's original vision was stated right in the title of his white paper: "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." I know that the vast majority of us are here today (and are super-excited about Bitcoin) because of that vision. I, for one, would NEVER have gotten involved in Bitcoin AT ALL if that white paper was entitled "A Bank-to-Bank Electronic Settlement System". And Satoshi was smart enough to allow for the protocol to evolve in a decentralized way, perhaps because he recognized that the protocol might try to be "hijacked by pirates" (to use G. Edward Griffin's words from his excellent video on freedom -- around the 10:13 mark). And it is my personal belief & opinion that the "core" protocol has currently been "hijacked by pirates". The good news is that Satoshi gave us a way to take back control from the pirates. Satoshi envisioned that there would be many different implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, and that the ecosystem would "vote" on the implementation that they believe is best suited for them. But, as G. Edward Griffin says in his video, we cannot "gain control of the ship again" by pleading with the pirates to respect our wishes, by politely asking the pirates to be fair, by requesting that the pirates reveal their funding sources, by going on a letter-writing campaign to the pirates to ask them if they would please change their direction, by taking the pirates to court, or by begging the pirates to listen to reason and come to a consensus that benefits all of human society. We also cannot gain control of the ship again by doing nothing & waiting for someone else to solve the problem. The pirates are ALREADY IN CHARGE and they will NOT STEP DOWN. The hijacking has ALREADY taken place IN THE PAST. The hijacking is complete. No, the only way that we can regain control of the ship again is by (drum roll please) recapturing control of the ship again!! So how do we do that?? In the exact same way that it was captured from us in the first place: through cooperation, coding, information, and voting with our software. The pirates have cooperated together to code a vandalized/bastardized version of Bitcoin, and they have controlled the information sources to get the ecosystem to vote against their own interests with their software. So now, we must all come together and cooperate together to continue coding a version of Bitcoin (XT??) that sticks to the true vision of Bitcoin. And we must all cooperate together to spread honest information out there through the most powerful voices out there who can further spread the information as far as possible on our behalf (e.g. Coinbase). And then, the entire ecosystem will finally be educated enough to vote FOR their interests instead of AGAINST their interests. Yes, it was a bad decision for Gavin to hand over his keys to the current pirates, but if Bitcoin can't survive this first batch of pirates, then it can't survive future pirates that might be even stronger than this ragtag bunch of vandals. Satoshi gave us the power to bring freedom and liberty to all... may we all work together to hopefully see his vision come to fruition.
This graph shows Bitcoin price and volume (ie, blocksize of transactions on the blockchain) rising hand-in-hand in 2011-2014. In 2015, Core/Blockstream tried to artificially freeze the blocksize - and artificially froze the price. Bitcoin Classic will allow volume - and price - to freely rise again.
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/how-we-know-bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble/#selection-59.4-68.0 (Scroll down to see the graph - also note there is a typo in the legend: "Bitcoin market map" should say "Bitcoin market cap[italization]".) Without artificial limits, Bitcoin volume and price are naturally and tightly correlated. This tight, lockstep correlation between those two lines during 2011-2014 has been absolutely amazing - one of the tightest correlations you'll ever observe in any dynamic system anywhere, in economics, sociology, or nature. Price and volume rose (and fell) hand-in-hand for 4 years straight - one of the most majestic examples of emergent phenomena in the whole history of economics. Left to run its natural course, this graph would probably have continued in lockstep, and thus would have eventually gone into the history books of future generations, marking the inexorable emergence and dominance of the cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin - the inevitable triumph of humanity's first decentralized and permissionless store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account - steadily rising through the years in price and volume - and in usefulness. Then in late 2014, a new company called Blockstream tried to block this natural progression. The oligarchs behind the ancien régime of debt-backed, violence-enforced infinite fiat thought they had figured out a clever way to attempt to make their last pièce de résistance while making some money too. They brought out their their usual grab-bag of assorted dirty tricks which they typically use to take down any new social or economic or political movement that promises to liberate people from the stranglehold of private central bankers:
They bought off the Core developers, bringing them into the Blockstream corporation, with a measly initial $ 21 million in funding, and now adding another measly $ 55 million (mere chump change compared with the tsunami of trillions of dollars in wealth which Bitcoin's market cap could eventually represent).
They figured out how to "play" the Core devs like fiddles, turning them into "useful idiots": taking advantage of their cypherpunk sensibilities and economic innocence in order to trick them into thinking that the only metric of decentralization was "The blocksize must remain small enough for Luke-Jr to run a node over a slow-ass internet connection in the backwaters of Florida" - while making them ignore all other metrics, in particular: decentralization of mining, and price & adoption.
So far, Blockstream thinks they're winning in their battle to control Bitcoin.
They succeeded (during 2015) in splitting the community, maybe even creating even a few more useful idiots in the process.
They succeeded (during 2015) in suppressing the price: as you can see by observing how the lockstep correlation between price and volume diverged in 2015, with the price now lagging and sagging below the volume for the first time ever.
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK But can they keep spreading around their fiat and FUD to continue fooling all the people all the time? Probably not. Because... Now you can choose to run a repo without Blockstream's artificial scarcity on blocksize and transactions on the blockchain. Now, instead of running the Bitcoin Core repo from Blockstream, you can run any one of these another tested and deployed repos, which do notartificially limit the blocksize to 1 MB:
Bitcoin is a natural, market-based and community-based, emergent phenomenon. At its heart, in the words of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is a P2P Electronic Cash System where Alice "A" can send to Bob "B" some amount of Coins "C", secured via a cryptographic signature. It may come as a shock to certain people's egos, but even if most of the devs were to suddenly stop working now - the current system would probably work fine for the next few years - with investors and businesspeople continuing to gradually increase the price and volume in accordance with the desires of the worldwide market, and miners and full-nodes continuing to gradually increase the "max blocksize" in accordance with the capacity of the worldwide infrastructure - and everyone continuing to innovate and participate in the growth of the system in accordance with the desires of the worldwide community. Bitcoin doesn't really need a whole lot of interference from devs trying to centrally plan what the "max blocksize" should be - or mods trying to centrally control what the "consensus of opinions" should be. These kinds of things are better left to just naturally emerge on their own. Central planning and control are not needed. As we have already seen, when the market is allowed to determine Bitcoin price and volume on its own, they both naturally go up, hand-in-hand - while the value of centrally-planned fiat goes down and and down. And when the community is allowed to determine upvotes and downvotes on its own, the quality of debate naturally goes up - while the quality of centrally-controlled debate on censored forums goes down and down. We all know that Bitcoin is supposed to be trustless and permissionless. Bitcoin development should also be egoless. As a dev or a mod, it's hard to "step aside" and let the market or the community decide. It's much more tempting to interfere: enforce a limit here, delete a comment there. But the market and the community are emergent phenomena. They work best when devs and mods learn to put aside their egos and "step back" and let the market and the community do what they will. This is the raison d'être of Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Bitcoin XT: learning to let the market and the community decide again - learning to step back again, and let the price and volume go up again, with no unnecessary interference from devs or mods. https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained
Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.) Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well. BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war. Who are they fighting against? The government and central banks. There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software. BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker. Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”. Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre. Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs. ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government. Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks. Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology. One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government. Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot. Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war. Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies. More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com). HOW TO WIN THE WAR To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
steal wealth from its citizens by printing money (When a government prints money, it is no different than when a criminal counterfeits money. Both are stealing wealth from the other people holding the same currency.)
tax wherever it pleases (and then squander the money or spend it on activities that the population does not agree with, such as wars)
continue exploding the size of government
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it. IS BITCOIN WINNING? Yes and no. Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals. Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold. However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency. If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies. BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times? Because of small blocks. SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT Why isn't the block size increased? Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.) Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused. The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
Small Blockers, who did not want to increase the block size
They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos. He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased? He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future. Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores. Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later. CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain? DIFFERENT AGENDAS It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas. Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!” Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good." Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.” Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later” Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.” Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.” Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed” Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.” Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.” Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome." Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.” Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system” Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia. Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions. An analogy of this scaling debate is this: You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph. Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built. CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users). Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table. In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream. But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream. Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems. BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers. Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'. Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited. MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
never want to increase block size
required consensus to stop other people’s changes, but not their own
hijacked control of Bitcoin
are incentivized to sell their off-chain product called Liquid
"work for a company that makes more money the worse the block chain gets"
THE DIVORCE To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC. After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH. Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while. Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash. Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money. This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different. Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways. Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
I was extremely disappointed by the announcement at http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/29n8o0/100000_bounty_winner_announcement/ of the winner in the recent $100,000 Bitcoin Foundation replacement challenge. The winner was announced to be mike_hearn, who I criticized in depth on Monday for what will be an ineffective plan designed to produce high-quality updates to the bitcoin codebase. You can read Monday's comments for the reasons why I believe his proposal is flawed. Both of the entrants who were congratulated in that announcement were significantly flawed and I don't believe either one will address the problem in any meaningful fashion. Hearn's proposal ignores the economics of software development and naively assumes that piecemeal development is going to produce quality work, or that the best developers are going to quit jobs for what amounts to temp work with no benefits. The "Eris" proposal is better, but fails on the fundamental flaw that it was built on the Ethereum network. The Ethereum developers have interests that are not aligned with the bitcoin developers' interests, and Ethereum is a premined currency where almost a quarter is held by a small group. The Eris proposal introduces an unnecessary dependency that, if Ethereum fails, would bring significant harm to bitcoins. Everything that Ethereum does can be done with bitcoin, and there are already some services sprouting up to build on top of the existing bitcoin protocol. A truly innovative solution would have developed a way to run a system like Eris on top of bitcoin. This is what happens when you offer bounties. Instead of getting exceptional results, you have to choose between suboptimal, rushed choices. Not only that, but the money is essentially wasted; Hearn, who is backed by VCs and is rich himself, does not need to win $100,000. While $100,000 is not enough money to produce great software, it could have been a nice payment for a proof-of-concept by a group with a workable idea that was vetted before development began.
Russia softens stance on bitcoin
One of the best pieces of news to come out recently is that Russia has "softened its stance" on the use of bitcoins. Given that the Chinese and Russians share many common interests in the world and are both dictatorial regimes, some of the Chinese bankers must be particularly perturbed by this decision. I wouldn't expect this news to have any impact at all on the markets or even on the adoption of bitcoins in Russia. Even if bitcoins were made 100% legal tomorrow, it would still take Russian businessmen many years to produce services like those already present in the West.
Just when the previous two days could not have possibly had more good news for cryptocurrencies, GHash.io again threatens by raising its market share to 43%. As I've stated before, I'm not significantly concerned that GHash.io is going to take over the network in any way. The major concern is whether news articles start appearing from people who claim that bitcoins are going to be done because of this event. I was involved in a conversation with some people last week and we were trying to puzzle out their business model. I, at least, was unable to do so. For our pool, we are going to spend about $4k in hardware plus $219.99/month in bandwidth. These costs are incurred not even on day one, but on day -30, well before we can even launch. This stuff isn't cheap and GHash.io has to buy computers like this to support their operations. You can't run a 0% mining pool without some source of revenue. Doing this out of the goodness of your heart to support the network requires 1% just to break even. GHash.io, therefore, is losing money to offer their service. What could a business possibly want with a product that not only loses money, but never has any potential to earn money? It's not as if you're selling propane at a loss in the summer becuase you know its value will be higher to people in the winter. Here, GHash.io just gives away stuff for nothing at their own expense without ever expecting anything in return. The key to figuring stuff out is always to follow the money. Where is the money to be made here? One way to make money is to control the flow of transactions in some way, but since anyone can take transaction fees, it doesn't make sense for someone to pay more for "priority" service to them. They could be trying to reduce variance for their in-house mining operation, but if their in-house operation mines as many blocks as people say it does, why does variance matter if you control 25% of the network versus 50%? Another thought is that they simply have no business plan, and they are like the startups in '99 that VCs were pouring millions into. The plan during the dot-com bubble was simply to get more users, and once there are lots of users, some company will be foolish enough to buy the unprofitable company out.
More prognosticators trying to "forget" predictions
Right on the hands of CryptoCoinsNews ignoring that they predicted bitcoins would fall to $120 in May, we have this guy (http://newsbtc.com/2014/07/01/prof-mark-t-williams-concerns-bitcoin-remain/) saying "My concerns about bitcoin remain." It seems to be commonplace that people who make incorrect predictions never attempt to even analyze what could have caused them to be incorrect. I would have thought that a tenured professor would be of a higher ethical caliber than the CryptoCoinsNews authors, but I guess degrees have little to do with apologizing for being wrong.
Two types of people
After some of the commentary about yesterday's scenario of damage by a roommate, I realized that there are two types of people in the world, which I will call "parasitic" and "growth" people. "Parasitic" people are those who you believe are friends and who you get along with well, until some point where underlying negative behavior is exposed. These people are willing to take advantage of you, whether they begin the friendship/acquaintence/relationship with that in mind or not. One example is yesterday's story. Another is a case where I signed a contract to do video of a wedding a few years ago as a free gift, only to find out when I arrived that I was asked to pay for my lodging. Even if the lodging had not been included in the contract (which it was), a reasonable person would have recognized that the right thing to do is to provide cheap accomodations when a $2000 video was being provided for nothing. In another instance, I offered to make DVD copies back when DVD-R's were expensive, about $5 each. Some people took the copies and later never mentioned paying for the materials. Another example is when you go to a restuarant and order cranberry juice, and the other people order five wines each. Parasitic people assume that it's acceptable to split the bill. A counterexample to those people are "growth" people, who are genuinely interested in helping others. One time, I called someone who owned a house in a vacation area and inquired what hotels were the best places to stay in the area. She offered her house, which was worth $1000/wk, and not only that, she showed up at the house to cook meals and provide transportation and tours, taking nothing in return. She refused my offer of a visit to our house, and offered to host us again later. The problem is that "parasitic" people make up about 90% of the population, and "growth" people make up only about 10%. My theory is that many people set too low a bar for their associations, and therefore get taken advantage of by such people. I think that what one needs to do is to immediately sever ties with people when they start to inordinately rely on your money, your kindness, or your time. Many people, however, correctly recognize that the growth people are rare, and "settle" for friendships with the parasitic people. The key is recognizing that it's better to have no friends at all than to have parasitic people in your life. When you try to retain contact with the parasitic types, you end up losing valuable resources (like money, time, and energy) that could be better spent towards meeting people of a higher caliber. Therefore, while I was initially shocked at the condemnation of the roommate in most of the replies, I'm of agreement with the commenters in the previous thread that it's important to continually watch out for this sort of behavior and get those people out of your life before they drag you down.
I will be in Philly this Saturday and Sunday for the holidays. Also, every other Thursday a Toastmasters day, so I'll post on Friday and resume Monday, with short or no posts the other days. Hopefully, bitcoin_charlie or two_bit_misfit will fill the gap so people don't get bored.
These 25 top-voted posts from r/btc this week show that users and miners are working on real solutions to help Bitcoin move forward, while Core/Blockstream are obstructing progress and losing support. Please help spread this information (including translating for the Chinese-speaking community)!
Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Block Size Increase Hard Fork
Leaders of Core had a childish little selfish tantrum about wanting to work on what cool stuff they wanted to build and wouldn't listen. It would have been relatively safe and easy to introduce the 2mb HF if it was progressed collectively and collaboratively with good will by all parties. All of this could have been avoided long ago. There is one person who is very influential who we know to be adamant about blocks being confined to 1mb.
Hardfork in July 2017 will be too late. If you read the statement by Peter "I don't have a clue about economics" Todd you might start to puke. “Unfortunately Bitcoin simply doesn't scale well" How about you start to tell what exactly doesn't scale you fuckhead? P.S.: The blockchain is growing indefinitely, if you don't like that fact you should choose something else than cryptocurrencies or come up with a better way.
This is classic narrowmindedness on PT's part. He'd also be the first one to say that the internet is not sustainable as it produces exponentially more and more data. These guys are fucking idiots and really have no idea what they are talking about, all they see is "BLOAT!" and "TOO BIG FOR CURRENT NODES!" then react accordingly without even thinking about the fact that Bitcoin's usefulness mitigates these limiting factors almost entirely.
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.
There are limits on routing table sizes, but they are not top-down-specified-in-a-standards-document protocol limits. They are organic limits that arise from whatever hardware is available and from the (sometimes very contentious!) interaction of the engineers keeping the Internet backbone up and running.
We've long established that the 1mb limit (or their refusal to remove it) has absolutely nothing to do with technical concerns. It's a political matter, whose raison d'être we can only infer. Time to stop the bullshit and the [s]quabbling. Chinese miners wake up! Time to try something new. It quite literally can't be worse than what's going on right now.
Bitcoin has become embroiled in debate over the block size - an important topic for the health of the network, but not something that should halt progress in a young and rapidly developing field. The developer community in Bitcoin feels fairly dormant. Bitcoin never really made it past the stage of simple wallets and exchanges. Bitcoin’s “leadership” is ... toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of Core developers, recently referred to other Core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well-meaning dips***s.”
This was a good sobering read. It is also worth noting that Coinbase was left with little choice but to broaden its offerings given the current state of Bitcoin usability ... When BS hijacked BTC away from being money, it screwed a lot of business and usage plans. ... Praise be to the free market and the market place of ideas.
REPOST from 12/2015: "If there are only 20 seats on the bus and 25 people that want to ride, there is no ticket price where everyone gets a seat. Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they are fixed by adding seats, which in this case means raising the blocksize cap." – Vibr8gKiwi
By the way, this shows that a certain other trending OP from today: Why all the disinformation? Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees. Currently $0.05 ...is total bullshit. But that other OP was posted in an echo-chamber of censorship (r\bitcoin). That is dangerous (for them), because it allows them to enjoy the illusion that they are right - when in reality, they are wrong, because they are ignoring the fact that full blocks DO matter: because the overflow goes elsewhere (into fiat, into alts, etc.).
Bitcoin exchange and wallet service Coinbase is adding support for ether, the native cryptocurrency of the Ethereum network. ...
This is quite significant. I would interpret this as a loss of confidence in Blockstream to provide what customers need in a timely manner. While Blockstream wastes time figuring out how to stuff all the world's transaction data into their beloved tiny blocks, the market will move on to solutions that can actually scale and can scale NOW.
Opinions on Gavin over there are variously: 1 - Why aren't you coding for Core? 2 - Which agency do you work for? 3 - Haha classic suxxor A very telling series of questions that the false agenda has fermented and sunk in.
It's actually kind of brilliant ! Think about it: no need for super dangerous hard forks, and not even soft forks. No new code needed, no testing, nothing. All it took was 2-3 years of endless stalling, organizing some fake conventions, a bit of character assassination and demonization here and there, nothing major. Done. It was actually very well-thought-out. Congratulations and hat off to nullcadam3us and all their drones.
Bitcoin is a giant, global "Consensus-tron" based on a fundamental meta-rule: "51% Consensus based on Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Blockstream/Core is trying change this meta-rule, to make it "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") - the MOST CONTENTIOUS change conceivable in Bitcoin The main characteristic of Bitcoin is that it is basically a kind of global "consensus-producing machine" or "Consensus-tron" - which runs based on a fundamental meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" - also called "Nakamoto Consensus". Recently, Blockstream has started trying to quietly change this fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin based on "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Instead, they have proposed a totally different meta-rule based on "95% Consensus" - which they like to call "Strong Consensus", but a better name would probably be "Extreme Consensus", to show what an extreme change it would be.
Every binary vote has an opposite side. 95% consensus is actually 5% consensus of the opposing team. Would you like a 5% consensus system? No? Then you wouldn't like a 95% consensus system. That's why 50% is the only valid threshold -- because it's the only one that makes both sides equal.
Continuing on this road , soon Coinbase and Circle will probably allow to send and receive Ether, and Coinbase and Bitpay will offer the option to pay in Ether. At that point Gregonomic fee pressure will go out of the window. The first mover led the ground work, but it's not an exclusive advantage. Bitcoin needs to wake up from the Blockstream-induced coma !!!
This is so painfully obvious. The users do not want a "fee market". Blockstream is absolutely hell-bent on giving us one, despite there being no need for a "fee market" at this point in time. Therefore the free market will do its job and provide an alternative to Bitcoin, and the users will move to the alternative where they will get what they actually want.
Bitcoin users are speaking out, and they want bigger blocks. Compare these 2 OPs: r\bitcoin: "Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees" (100 upvotes) vs btc: "Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they can only be fixed by raising the blocksize cap" (200 upvotes)
The block size issue has turned me off to bitcoin entirely, I no longer evangelize, no longer buy or use them. Blockstream has destroyed all the good-will I had for Bitcoin. Once the block sizes are larger, and continue rising with use, I'll be interested again. until then, Bitcoin can wallow in the fail
Damn fucking straight, the larger block side has been compromising for over a year and they have refused to compromise from day one. Now is not the time to compromise, now is the time to sweep them aside as they have brought nothing to the table. These devs shouldn't even be given the time of day considering their open contempt for larger blocks and the miners should be finding devs that will give them what they need, rather than trying to negotiate with asshats that refuse to negotiate.
"It's truly funny how blockstream are dead against 2mb of block data using traditional transactions along with linear signature validation... but blindly think that 2.85mb of segwit + confidential payment codes + other features is acceptable." And also funny that their roadmap allows for 5.7mb blocks when blockstream decide its ok for the hard fork.. yet they cant explain what network bandwidth restrictions are currently preventing 2mb now but weirdly and suddenly not an issue for 5.7mb next year...
It's a matter of ego and politics. From a computer science standpoint, Adam Back wanted the 2-4-8 mb scaling originally, which would have been completely safe (and smart). Segwit is required for the Lightning Network and some other things Blockstream wants to centralize and profit from. No better way to get something you need in there than making it necessary for scaling and saying it's the best solution. Segwit is a backwards approach compared to the easier and cleaner solution of increasing the blocksize
maaku7: "I don't know anyone who is actually working on a hard fork right now (although I'm sure someone is). Keep in mind very few core developers were at the HK meeting and that 'agreement' is mostly not acceptable to those who were not there." The Hongkong Farce. Great job Core and Chinese/Georgian 'miners'!
HF will never happen unless miners switch client. The problem is miners still trust Adam & Co. The day Mike Hearn left, he told me: "Both Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell are extremely skilled manipulators, timewasters and both of them have been caught lying red handed. I strongly suggest you just ignore both of them. I do not plan to take part in Bitcoin related discussions further". From my experience, Adam will tell you whatever you want to hear, but do something different behind your back. Just look at his presentations he gave to the miners and others, they are full of lies and inaccuracies. This isn't rocket science. I just can't understand why people keep buying bullshit from a guy who's not even a core dev, but president of a company that only benefits from making sure Bitcoin itself is crippled so people are forced offchain.
That was known opinion by Mark [Friedenbach, maaku7]. He said right after HK that it is not Core's agreement, that individual developers there were not representatives for Core. And that the HF block limit increase is not an option. I don't know what are miners still expecting and waiting for.
There's more than enough developer talent in the Bitcoin space to ensure a hard fork comes off successfully, but the Core developers have divided the community with lies to make it more difficult to pull off. Instead of helping achieve it, they have created community-wide FUD.
My opinion is that we can't have Blockstream at all involved in Bitcoin any longer. If you keep them involved, even after a blocksize increase, we will suffer in the future. Similar to malware, you have to remove it.
Hearn describes in the interview how people in the developer scene do not truly want the cryptocurrency to be decentralized.
“They say they want so, but that’s not what they want. Bitcoin is a young, unripened Democracy, in which a group of developers hold the power. And this group is desperately trying to prevent a real vote on the future of Bitcoin.” ... “[They] won’t vote against Core, because [they’ve] been told voting is dangerous,” Hearn elucidates. “The miners are not per se against proposals to increase the capacity, such as something like Bitcoin Classic wants. The miners refuse to vote. At this point, some developers, including myself, lost interest, because we realized it no longer was a debate about the block size. Suddenly it was trying to convince Chinese people democracy is a good thing.”
~ Mike Hearn
Sadly, he sounds like the voice of reason in a world gone mad.
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch. People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
This is so true. I mean, look at the logic. If $0.01 is not enough, and everyone sets it at $1.00, then it is still not enough because the number of transactions at the 'higher' price is still too many and blocks are still full with transactions being ignored.
The core devs (Wladimir and Maxwell) do not care about the price of bitcoin. They do not care to give investors a clear indication of what capacity will be in the near or mid future. This is contrary to the fact that everything else is known. Roger Ver is right. Investors (Hodlers) are a large part of what makes bitcoin valuable. Without a clear indication of what capacity is going to be in the future there is no clear indication of what the worth of Bitcoin actually is.
Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin.
Gregory Maxwell (nullc) & /bitcoin have deleted my posts They have also banned me from any discussion on their subreddit. I was simply posting that Gregory Maxwell (nullc) is lying when he says "the Chinese Bitcoin community stands behind us". This is false, they do not. In fact, a respected member from the Chinese Bitcoin community said this: "Do you know that what you are doing is harming bitcoin by spreading misinformation? I'm from China. I can just tell you the common sense in the Chinese Community of Bitcoin. No one likes BlockStream now! People in China all know that it is Greg Maxwell who is blocking bitcoin by limiting block size. I dare say, your company can never develop any business in China in the future."
Jihan of Antpool, great response in regards to Chinese Bitcoin discussion on /bitcoin I was banned from:
Maxwell, When you talking about "in fact", it smells like no fact. You are spreading very serious rumors about the mining network situation. Antpool has been connected to Relay Network and also testing a new network called Falcon after being invited. The total network orphan rate has been keeping lower and lower in the past months, which is an evidence that the network is working in a much better situation. Antpool in the past April have only 1 orphaned block, which is an evidence that there is no selfish mining situation - a selfish mining attack will generate higher orphan rate on both competitors and attackers. On the https://poolbench.antminer.link/, you can find ... the performance of a mining pool. (This is a third party site, this is fact.) Antpool and other mining pools had made the position clear as water since in the Hong Kong meeting, that SegWit+HF [is] coming as package. If you just realized right now, ... the communication problem inside Core, you cannot blame anyone else. We will not activ[ate] the SegWit until seeing the promised (by "individuals" yes I know Maxwell could not be represented) HF code being released in Bitcoin Core. If everything is progressed according the HK Consensus, the SegWit will not be stalled. The SegWit as a very th[o]rough improvement/change [and] will need to be carefully tested and reviewed after its release, at least for several months. During which time the HF can be proposed, defined, implemented and released. While the max blocksize limit lifting can be activated later, but as the code is already contained in the release, most of the economic nodes in the network will be compatible with the coming blocksize bumping up. Bitcoin is a worldwide economy infrastructure and it requires working together and moving forward. Greg, you need to have some self control from talking like a human flesh fascist propaganda machine, trying to attack anyone who disagree with you. Please don't tag those concerns as "pro-altcoin". (Another evidence of your problematic speaking style.) The concerns are genuine concerns. Some of the concerns coming from people who hold very large stake of Bitcoin since early time. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the town. I also see some small blockers are very active in the competing coin development. You cannot use this methods to distinguish people at all. Then stop judging people's intention and unrelated behavior but focus on the problem itself. The only thing I have to add is that you can't wait for Mr. Maxwell and his company to deliver their promise. It is a toxic arrangement and we need to focus on looking past them, repairing the damage and working towards the future. When there are too many lies and scandal involved, you have to cut your losses and walk away. Investors around the world will be confident once we start making firm moves. Positive press from Forbes will help repair confidence with investors. Either way, thank you! We are all committed to working together.
In successful open-source software projects, the community should drive the code - not the other way around. Projects fail when "dead scripture" gets prioritized over "common sense". (Another excruciating analysis of Core/Blockstream's pathological fetishizing of a temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge)
The essence of Gavin's point reminded me of the things the Agile Manifesto was meant to address. ... The behaviour of Blockstream is like the most pathological cases of capital-E Enterprise software development I've seen.
Why is it not recognized that ANY block size limit is a hack on a hack Bitcoin will NOT work right until the size limit hack is removed entirely. The limit is being leveraged to justify many actions. All of which would be moot if the limit did not exist.
You're absolutely right. Miners have always regulated the size of their own blocks and still do. We see it in the form of excluding zero-fee transactions, SPV mining, spam filtering, etc. They will do the same without a limit. All in the name of maintaining profitability.
One of the earliest Bitcoin developers, Mike Hearn, held an Ask Me Anything (AMA) session on Reddit earlier today. Among other responses to the public AMA session, Hearn felt that Bitcoin Cash (BCH) was “nowhere near radical enough” as an alternative to Bitcoin.He further recommended that challengers to the world’s most used cryptocurrency “be willing to think radical, even heretical ... Bitcoin community responds to Mike Hearn's blog, says nothing is wrong with the Bitcoin Network. Blockchain hard-fork Bitcoin Classic heads towards consensus. Mike Hearn, einer der Bitcoin-Entwickler, sieht die Kryptowährung als gescheitert an und verlässt das Projekt. Er kritisiert ungeklärte Zuständigkeiten in der Leitung und fürchtet um die ... Hearn states, “Bitcoin Core has a brilliant solution to this problem — allow people to mark their payments as changeable after they’ve been sent, up until they appear in the block chain. The stated intention is to let people adjust the fee paid, but in fact, their change also allows people to change the payment to point back to themselves, thus reversing it. —This protocol change will ... /r/btc was created to foster and support free and open Bitcoin discussion about cryptocurrency, Bitcoin news, and exclusive AMA (Ask Me Anything) interviews from top Bitcoin and cryptocurrency leaders. Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet. A distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need ...
Mark Cuban Sounds Ignorant Blasting Bitcoin’s Security and Value
Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News 2/3/2020 Become a CryptosRus INSIDER to gain exclusive insight on the market, get reviews and analysis on undervalued cryptocurrencies and get access to valuable ... Jun.26 -- On this edition of "Charting Futures," Bloomberg's Mike McGlone examines the performance of Bitcoin futures with Bloomberg's Abigail Doolittle on "... Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss Mike Hearn whiny rage quitting Bitcoin in order to join a banking system with life-or-death power but where no real auditing is possible. In the second half ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue Published on Mar 24, 2020. Check out the Cryptocurrency Technical Analysis Academy here: https://bit.ly/2EMS6nY Join the First Cohort here: https://bit.ly/2qrs5rb In today's video, we discuss the ...