Bitcoinist - Bitstamp To Be Banned By Theymos For ...
Bitcoinist - Bitstamp To Be Banned By Theymos For ...
9 Best Crypto Memes images Memes, Bitcoin mining, What ...
The Thermos Has Been Compromised : New Bitcoin Comic ...
Bitstamp To Be Banned By Theymos For Supporting BIP 101
Theymos (AKA thermos :) is bringing the site up back ...
Operation Mockingbird - remember that time when Bitcoin was peer-to-peer electronic cash?
Do you remember what it was like in 2013 and earlier when Satoshi / Gavin were running the project and the goal was more users, merchants and scaling? Do you remember that time when the exciting projects were getting merchants to accept Bitcoin for payments, wallet apps, and maps of businesses and people that used and accepted Bitcoin as money? Do you remember that time when the MIT digital currency initiative (sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein and his mysterious intelligence agency "investment money"), MasterCard, and Western Union all invested in Blockstream who suddenly consolidated control of the Bitcoin development group, smearing and attacking anyone who wouldn't get on board? Remember that time that Theymos, who had been pro-Bitcoin scaling suddenly had a personality change and started censoring and banning anyone who talked about scaling bitcoin from the two largest discussion platforms, bitcoin talk dot org and r\bitcoin? Remember that time when fake Bitcoin celebrities with marketing teams behind them started appearing out of nowhere with the view that we shouldn't increase the capacity of Bitcoin so more people can use it? Remember that time that countless NPC's changed the community's narrative from peer-to-peer electronic cash with the goal of merchant and user adoption to "digital gold" or some kind of digital tulip ponzi scheme that's too expensive to use for day-to-day currency? Remember that time when the miners, now consolidated in CCP controlled China, suddenly voted against their own best-interests, and decided to run software that rate-limits Bitcoin to 5 transactions per second, despite overwhelming community opposition? Pepperidge Farm remembers. This is Operation Mockingbird folks, just a 21st Century version of it. So was SegWit, BSV/CSW, and now this IFP bullshit from Amaury.
I have enjoyed watching Cobra slowly change his public position on several things. It's never too late to make up for ones mistakes in my eyes! Still, maybe this is a fun opportunity to revisit some of the highlights of Cobra's tenure over Bitcoin.org. 15 June 2015: Bitcoin.org introduces an official ‘position on hard-forks,’ which meant it would not promote XT. Bitcoin.org will not promote software or services that will leave the previous consensus because of a contentious hard fork attempt. 26 December 2015: Cobra makes a Github issue to remove Coinbase from the “choose your wallet” page on Bitcoin.org to punish them for running a Bitcoin XT node in addition to their Bitcoin Core node. 01 July 2016: Cobra posts on Github that he wants to update the Bitcoin whitepaper because it confuses people. 03 July 2017: An issue is open on the Bitcoin.org Github account titled Removal of BTC.com wallet? Cobra replies that he doesn’t mind if they are removed from the website as punishment because of their association with Jihan Wu and therefore, big block efforts. They’re associated with that monster Jihan Wu, so I don’t mind if they get removed because of this, they’re terrible people. I definitely feel like a line has been crossed here. 28 September 2017: Cobra opens a Github issue for Bitcoin.org labeled Add Segwit2x Safety Alert. The alert ostensibly warns users of hostile companies, but the list includes most of the oldest, most successful Bitcoin companies, and the real goal seems to be to scare or punish these companies for their stance on Segwit 2x. 08 November 2017: Theymos creates a Github issue titled Policy to fight against “miners control Bitcoin” narrative. Hilariously, Cobra replies in agreement and blames this misconception on the white paper itself. 11 August 2018: Cobra creates a Github issue to discuss relisting companies that were removed from Bitcoin.org for supporting the 2mb hard fork block size increase. His reasoning is that the delisting worked to stop the increase and that these companies are unlikely to try it again. You will be missed Cobra! If you are interested in appointing a member of Bitcoin.org who will be more open to competing ideas, I invite you to DM me. I am very familiar with the Jekyll static site generator you're currently using.
SODL. It's been swell, but the swelling's gone down.
Those familiar with this username already know that I've been involved with Bitcoin since 2012. I purchased my first satoshi before $1k/BTC had ever been seen. I spent years creating developer solutions and electronic products designed to leverage Bitcoin's capability to facilitate frictionless Internet payments and that same time explaining Bitcoin to family, friends, internet buddies, fellow gamers, and anyone else that would listen. Over time, that capability for frictionless payment dried up. First lack of space in blocks rendered the primary consumer solution I'd been developing as totally useless. There is no point in developing a risk assessment system when the thing being assessed is too risky to justify instant commerce. I feared Bitcoin had met an untimely end at the hands of self-important developers and lazy entitled miners, but was relieved to know that the BTCFORK project was alive and ready to continue the Bitcoin experiment in the form of what would later be called Bitcoin Cash (BCH). When the fork hit, I was all in from day one. I traded out everything, forked my coins and recovered every satoshi of BCH I could muster. At one lofty point in my life, I had the rare claim to have actually possessed 21 BCH in the same wallet at the same time. I continued developing and introducing people to BCH. I explained to my family and friends the schism and the thought processes that lead me to use BCH instead of BTC. I spent countless hours justifying its existence to a general public that is uninterested in technical details or freedom from potential government seizures and simply want money that works. Unfortunately, no crypto has never seemed to hold this goal in high esteem. As time has marched onward and progress has continued to be stymied by drama between more self-important developers and lazy entitled miners, I have finally realized why the Bitcoin experiment failed, and how we got here. Bitcoin's design relies on one very important aspect: that miners behave as rational, long-term-invested economic actors. This would infer that over time, mining organizations will dedicate resources to developing in-house mining solutions and manage them with the same level of interest as a big box store manages their inventory. In short, it would make sense for miners to invest in their own closed-source development, based on the open-source reference client. This would create competition between compatible implementations maintained by groups that are self-invested in their interoperability and suitability for consumer use. This did not happen, of course. Miners took the lazy, short-term-interested approach of "just run the software, don't care how it works or how well" and left the actual work of looking out for and maintaining the security of the chain to the unpaid open-source developers. This was a recipe for failure years ago and is the same recipe BCH has chosen to follow today. The IFP is simply a physical manifestation of this problem: since devs are not miners, Amaury et. al. are now expecting pay for their work in keeping those miners afloat, and rightly so. But they never should have been doing it in the first place; that was the miners' responsibility the whole time. If you're in an emergent industry running emergent software, you kind of have a responsibility to maintain that software out of pocket. This applies double for high-security software such as financial software. Lazy miners that can't even invest in their own software infrastructure are not trustworthy enough to be relied upon for the security of my funds. Bitcoin has already failed; and with that clearly observable failure I have sold the remainder of my cryptocurrency, unsubscribed from this and other subreddits, removed various forum accounts, and ceased usage of any remaining services built to work with Bitcoin-style digital signatures. It's been a wild ride. I even made a nice chunk of money along the way. It was fun and fascinating and eye-opening and educational and profitable; but for me, it's over. The success of global peer-to-peer digital cash has already been thwarted, and that's all I ever came for. Greg Maxwell didn't do this. Amaury Sechet didn't do this. Jihan Wu didn't do this. Roger Ver didn't do this. Theymos didn't do this. All those miners, all those mining pools, all those people that have been actively profiting off the system by running freely provided software and giving back only blocks in return: they are at fault for this failure. It is too late to turn back; the IFP is effectively a cork in a crumbling dam, a half-assed solution to a double-donkey problem. The dream is over, at least for me, and so I'll be moving on now. The transition to crypto was troublesome and full of problems. I was on a 100% crypto budget for years and even found myself paying a premium for the "convenience". Funnily enough, the transition back to fiat was amazingly smooth and I actually made money on the way back. Sorry, guys - at the end of the day, fiat does what crypto doesn't. I see the writing on the wall - and now I add my final scrawl. Goodbye, everyone.
The bitcoin.com wallet app is one of the greatest tools we have right now for mass adoption. Well done developers. I saw the number of wallets downloaded from the website bitcoin.com increased from 2,555,000 to 2,557,500, that is about 800 downloads an hour! 20,000 new wallets are created everyday and it's rapidly growing. Yesterday I showed a workmate (who heard about bitcoin, but never owned any) how to quickly download it from the Play Store and setup his wallet. Explain him the general differences from the book between BTC and BCH, and proceeding to send him as a gift $1 worth of BCH, payment was instant, and when they receive the amount you can see on them, on their expression of curiosity and excitement for owning their first Bitcoin. He ask me why do I do that? Well first, I told him it was tipping Tuesday in the BCH community and second explained briefly, because this is a person to person instant, cheap, borderless and and with no intermediaries money transaction. And left them have with their thoughts about it. Today again, just before my housemate leaves for his night shift, I approached him and ask if he wanted some Bitcoin (again, heard about it but never owned any). Again quick download from his Appstore (Great job bitcoin.com for having the app in both platforms), wallet setup. And well, his phone app was in Chinese, as his mother language is, so even if was in Chinese default I was able to get around and explaining him how easy is to start using the wallet and also sent him a gift of $1 to see his reaction. Excitement! And as this two examples, a believe a lot of you have similar stories about sharing a gift from science to give back some power to the people.
You have probably heard of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin after its meteoric rise in price last year, but you may not know that it has one of the most drama-filled communities on the planet. This is one of the many bizarre tales from crypto-land. It started with the block size debate. Simplified, the block size is a hard cap on the transaction capacity of each "block" in the bitcoin blockchain. Basically it results in a maximum rate of transactions possible on the bitcoin network. This number is actually pretty low, like 7 transactions per second, and in 2017 this limit was hit. This caused transaction fees and transaction confirmation time to rise dramatically, as people competed to get their transactions included in the next block. At one point it would cost on average over $50 to get your transaction confirmed, and those with lower fees had their transactions stuck in limbo for days or even weeks. Understandably, many people were upset at this, and wanted to increase the block size to allow a higher rate of transactions. The problem is that many others disagreed and thought that it was too risky to change the block size. This is because changing the block size means changing the fundamental rules of the blockchain, which is not backwards compatible. The full pros and cons of each side are numerous and technical, so I won't bore you with them, but the point is that the debate grew and grew in intensity for many months, with neither side willing to budge. This culminated in a group of people deciding to deliberately release new software with a block size increase, knowing that it would cause a split (a so-called fork) in the blockchain because the other side would refuse to use their rules and would thus continue their own blockchain as if the others didn't exist. Enter "Bitcoin Cash", the new blockchain with the increased block size. So now each side can simply move on and use the version they prefer. All good, right? Hah, no, this is where things start getting really juicy. You see, both sides claimed they were the "true" bitcoin. Especially Bitcoin Cash fans would very often make the claim that Bitcoin Cash was how the original creator of Bitcoin had meant the project to evolve. These claims were based on a few vague 8-year old quotes from the creator saying that the block size could possibly be increased in the future if necessary. The creator of Bitcoin goes by the psuedonym Satoshi, he is a mysterious developer that no one have heard from for years. The phrase "Satoshi's vision" was repeated so much in the debate that it has pretty much become a meme phrase in the community. Therefore, Bitcoin Cash would probably have wanted to be simply called Bitcoin, but they grudgingly accepted the suffix "Cash" to their name for the time being for the sake of practicality, as they were the minority. However, this wasn't enough for the original Bitcoin side. Their fans were really irked by the fact that the forked-off chain had the nerve to have "Bitcoin" in their name too, tainting the reputation of their own bitcoin blockchain. They claimed Bitcoin Cash was trying to piggyback off their brand for profit. Because of this, they started referring to Bitcoin Cash as "Bcash" instead. This name was invented and only used by the anti-Bitcoin-Cash camp, so some would call it a rather petty deliberate tactic to undermine the competing fork. However most of them denied this, saying it was merely a harmless abbreviation, or to avoid confusion for beginners. Granted, two separate blockchains that both have bitcoin in their name *is* pretty confusing. But the Bitcoin Cash fans didn't buy it, and were very offended. The best example is this lovely, infamous clip, where a Bitcoin Cash spearheader lost it during an interview because the interviewer wouldn't stop using the word Bcash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI In turn, many Bitcoin Cash fans started calling the original chain for "Bitcoin Core", or "Bcore". The suffix "Core" comes from the name of the biggest wallet software made for Bitcoin. The Bitcoin Cash camp would often claim that the original Bitcoin chain was actually taken over by the Bitcoin Core developers, or more precisely Blockstream, a company that funded many of them, and was deliberately restricted in block size to make Blockstream's commercial products more desirable. Hilariously, some Bitcoin Cash supporters decided to start their own new unrelated cryptocurrency, and called it Bcash, so that they could say that calling Bitcoin Cash for Bcash was objectively wrong since the name Bcash was already officially taken by another project. Both sides would regularly attack each other by performing DDoS's, hacks, spam attack on the opposite blockchain to clog it up, and so on. The reddit communities split into at least two, /bitcoin and /btc. Both subreddits are accused of heavy censorship, especially /bitcoin does not let anyone talk about Bitcoin Cash, except sometimes if the content is aligned with their own opnions. Its main mod, Theymos, once posted the following announcement post trying to justify the censorship. It contains megalomaniac nuggets like "If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave." https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/ Meanwhile, yet more forks of Bitcoin started popping up, including Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, and Bitcoin Private. Also more recently, Bitcoin Cash had a controversial fork of its own resulting in Bitcoin SV, a fork of a fork. But that's another story. Not much has progressed since the fork around 18 months ago. Both sides still hate each other, but for now it seems the original Bitcoin chain is easily winning in popularity. But this might be because after the bubble last winter the transaction volume has decreased enough to allow most to fit into its block size. Who knows what will happen if/when the transaction volume picks up again and renders the blockchain all but useless.
Blockstream buys Greenaddress. Within 24 hours /r/bitcoin attacks Breadwallet for being "unsafe": "PSA: Do not use an SPV/Lite client to receive high risk transactions. They do not fully verify incoming funds." Moderator Theymos agreeing with oldtimer Blockstream fan pb1x. Unlikely just coincidence.
Reminder: Cobra-Bitcoin assisted and supported Theymos with agenda driven moderation that was designed to stop Bitcoin from functioning as a cash system.
Theymos implicitly said that Cobra was working with him to implement their agenda driven moderation campaign:
You must be naive if you think it'll have no effect. I've moderated forums since long before Bitcoin (some quite large), and I know how moderation affects people. Long-term, banning XT from /Bitcoin will hurt XT's chances to hijack Bitcoin. There's still a chance, but it's smaller. (This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it, and bitcoin.org)
(emphasis added) source Notes for those out of the loop:
Theymos & Cobra-Bitcoin are co-owners of the bitcoin.org domain name (source). As such Theymos and cobra-bitcoin are the ultimate deciders of what does and does not go on the bitcoin.org site.
bitcoin.org is and always was a popular bitcoin website. It's even mentioned in the white paper header. It was one of the 4 main sources of information on Bitcoin in the early days (the other 3 being bitcoin, bitcointalk.org & bitcoin.it).
"XT" refers to Bitcoin XT; a Bitcoin full node program. This was one of the first attempts to preserve Bitcoin's cash like functionality on the BTC chain by making a consensus change called BIP 101 that would automatically and predictably grow the block size over time. Bitcoin XT was the work of Gavin Andresen (the 2nd developer of Bitcoin after Satoshi and a long time Bitcoin Core maintainer) and Mike Hearn (a highly skilled ex-Google engineer who was an early Bitcoin developer and created key projects like bitcoinj).
The 1 MB block-size limit on the BTC chain was a temporary limit designed to stop poison block attacks. Satoshi made it clear that it should be hard forked out in the future. Anyone familiar with Satoshi's writings and how Bitcoin was built, designed and promoted would know that the plan was always for Bitcoin to serve as a cash system, in-part through on-chain scaling.
As explained by Jeff Garzik (another early Bitcoin developer), failure to bump the block size would predicatably lead to an economic change event and was, itself, a choice.
There are multiple reddit users like mrxsdcuqr7x284k6 claiming or implying in this thread that Bitcoin's huge loss of market share is not a result of the Bitcoin Core small block policy. I don't know what the exact market share of Bitcoin would be right now if Bitcoin was not successfully derailed by people like Greg Maxwell & Theymos who fought hard to stop even small block size increases. What I do know is that the huge loss of market share Bitcoin has undergone and the growth of other crypto currencies is largely the result of what they did. Anyone who is honest & intelligent and was around before, during and after Bitcoin lost massive market share, knows that the cause of this massive loss of market share and the growth of many other cryptos was a direct result of the artificial constraining of the transaction processing capacity of Bitcoin. This is not merely a hindsight claim. Vast numbers of Bitcoiners TOLD EVERYONE that this is what would happen if the block size was not increased. The only people who didn't see this coming (or claimed they didn't see it coming) are the Bitcoin Core supporters from that time who promoted Greg Maxwell's alternative design for Bitcoin.
We don’t expect fees to get as high as the highest seen in this table; they are just provided for reference.
What is the highest listed fee in the table? $0.756 What were the highest median fees during December of 2017? OVER $30 Over just the last 6 months there have been multiple median fee spikes that go above this supposed "high" value of $0.756
What was the message of the Bitcoiners who wanted to follow Satoshi's plan during 2015?
Here's Mike Hearn in 2015 in an interview saying that the people that don't want to the block size to be increased want users to migrate to other system when the block size fills up. Whether the people he is referring to actually did want that or not is irrelevant. This is just one example (of 1000s that could be dug up) of Bitcoiners stating plainly that failure to bump the block size will lead to people migrating to other systems. Here is what Mike Hearn predicted would happen if the block size isn't raised:
The aftermath Bitcoin would eventually recover. Users who became frustrated at the extreme unreliability would give up and stop trying to spend their coins. Many coins would make it to an exchange wallet and stay there. Node operators would make their nodes auto-restart. SPV wallets would find some trustworthy central authority to get fee data from. Most importantly, the overload would eventually go away …. because the users would go away. The backlog would clear. Fees would fall to the minimum again. So life would go on. Bitcoin would survive. But it would have lost critical momentum. It would have become the MySpace of digital currencies. The faithful would have lost a lot of faith, and businesses that were trying to bring Bitcoin to the mainstream would “pivot” towards something else. People who were motivated by Making The World A Better Place™ would conclude the ordinary people around them would never use their products, and so they’d leave.
source There are many details in Mike's blog post that he predicted wrong, but it's clear that he knew that the Bitcoin network would be degraded because of this fully saturated, small block policy. He knew users would leave the system. Here's Jeff Garzik in 2015 warning people about the economic change event that will occur if the block size is not increased. What did Gavin Andresen say would likely happen as a result of the small block policy? He said:
If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable.
source These are just a tiny sample of comments from prominent Bitcoiners. They are not anomalous. They are representative of what everyone fighting against this small-block policy was saying. Please don't let these ignorant fools & gaslighting snakes deceive you or others. I remember exactly what happened back then. I also know exactly what Bitcoin is and which chain is Bitcoin.
Hi all. I'm taking the liberty to share some hard-won experience at this point in time.
Some advice for Core and supporters
It's easy to feel resentment at this stage, having done so much work and written so much high-quality code, and yet getting a shitstorm for it. When I was leading the Swedish Pirate Party into the European Parliament, I was gradually getting used to getting a barrage of criticism grenades for everything I did and didn't do every single day, starting with when I did or didn't get out of bed in the morning. It's very hard to explain what this does to your psyche to somebody who hasn't experienced it. Imagine everybody was out to get you, every single day, and giving you high-pitched screaming blame for everything from an orange being round to some Mongolian guy's utter misinterpretation of what you said three years ago. I'm not exaggerating when I say that people could probably snap and go restraining-shirt-insane for much less. But the crucial thing when you're in a leadership position like that, getting criticism for absolutely everything, is to maintain your ability to sort the relevant criticism apart from the back seat drivers who make a living out of complaining but not contributing. You've also got to trust your inner compass of the vision you want to accomplish. From what I can tell, Core has made the common but crucial mistake of isolating itself from the community and taking on an expert attitude toward everybody else in trusting this inner vision compass over external criticism, where Core is somehow right by definition - the development happens as Core wants it, period. This is very dangerous in any open-source / free software project. Other people are just as intelligent and may have considerable experience and ability to evaluate the claims made, and these should - no, must - be taken seriously. To illustrate just one point, let's take a look at Core's scaling solution here, Segregated Witness. When I apply my nontrivial experience in coding and systems design - I started coding 37 years ago - I see these two options for scaling bitcoin near-term: OPTION ONE - Change the blocksize upper limit to two megabytes. One line of code for the constant, about ten LOCs for activation trigger logic. Requires upgrading of a majority server software. OPTION TWO - Introduce Segwit. About 500 lines of new code, of which at least 100 in the hypersensitive consensus code. Requires upgrading a majority of server software and all client/wallet software and client/wallet hardware, especially those needing to pay money to an arbitrary address (as Segwit introduces a new type of address). When proponents of Core's scaling tell me that Option Two here is the better because it's safer, and I try to comprehend that statement, I am either utterly insane or the statement is the equivalent of "black is white and up is down". It's just not completely counter to all experience in software engineering risk management, it's so far out it doesn't reflect sunlight anymore. When I try to understand more and challenge the assertion that option two is safer - on what I must say are very good grounds - I'm told that I should be leaving design to the experts and that I don't understand enough of the complex machine that is bitcoin. I know I am capable of learning complexities, but I am firmly told off from even trying. That's just not how you succeed in maintaining a community. That's not how you make people want to run your code. Of course, people are free to run whatever code they like. But the checks and balances in an open source community is simple: if the leadership for a project builds something different from what people want to run, they will run something else. It's therefore in the interest of the leadership to listen to the community to understand what software a majority wants to run. These competing interests provide the checks and balances. Now, I understand the complexity of block transfer times through the Chinese firewall and that preliminary tests indicate that a typical full node is saturated at a blocksize of 32 megabytes. However, none of these limits will be hit by this particular scaling. Also, when blazing a trail like this, you work one problem at a time, you solve one bottleneck at a time. People have been flagging for the necessity of increasing the blocksize for ... I don't have dates here at hand, but it should be the better part of a year if not more. Further down the road, scaling node throughput capacity can be done in a number of ways from GPUing ECDSA to specialized hardware, but it's not the imminent bottleneck. When such an enormous amount of crucial data (on the need to raise the blocksize limit) is ignored, that is done at the peril of the project. People in the bitcoin community are intelligent geeks, capable of inhaling absurd amounts of information and cross-referencing all of it. If you are unable to explain why your solution is better than another proposed solution, people will be utterly dissatisfied with the response "because we are the experts" - for you must assume that other people in the community, in the general case, are at least as intelligent and capable of learning as you are. It's even possible that if you can't explain your solution to an open and intelligent mind, it's not a good solution.
Some advice for Classic and supporters
So it appears the hard fork is happening. A lot of people have fought hard to raise the blocksize limit for a long time, using a variety of means, and it seems to be happening at long last. Core didn't take the last available opportunity to include a blocksize limit lift in 0.12, but have announced the release candidate without that feature. So this is it, this is when the fork happens or doesn't happen. Right now, based on announced support, the fork appears to be moving forward. A lot of people supporting Classic are feeling a lot of relief, even if people know that this effort is not done until the blocksize trigger has activated on the network. It's far from there at this point - there's not even deployed code. But everything seems to be going the right way. It's important to reflect on how this is more than a discussion on features. This is an election of what people decide get to decide on the features, direction, quality, and vision moving forward. And as Satoshi declared, there's only one thing determining the outcome of the election: what code is producing the longest chain. That's how bitcoin's democracy works, right there. This is not a selection of features. It's much bigger than that. It's an election of governance and stewardship into the future. As in most elections, there has been a lot of animosity - in both directions. As heels have been dug in, ditches turned to trenches, and preferences turned into prestige, people are starting to call out each other and accuse the other side of not working for what's best for bitcoin, and actively naming specific names in negative contexts. When those in power do this to you, you're feeling everything in the book between resentment, belittling, and outrage. It's easy to do the same thing back. There have even been suggestions that Core is deliberately sabotaging bitcoin to the benefit of ... a selection of actors. This creates a toxic culture leading up to the election point, where people are afraid to take bitcoin-positive initiatives in anticipation of all the negative attention that follows - for in such an environment, practically all attention will be negative. It doesn't help that people incumbent in positions of power tend to "do what they must, because they can" in order to safeguard the status quo, however small or insignificant that incumbency is - this includes everything from Theymos' deletion of discussions, via the silly DDoS attacks on XT nodes, to LukeJR's poison pull request to Classic about killing all miner hardware investment. Actions such as these are not really excusable, but they are still human: people tend to do the very human mistake of letting the ends justify the means, with the ends being what they believe is best for the bitcoin network. Of course, other people disagree of what's best for the bitcoin network, and toxicity follows until the conflict is resolved. And beyond. The toxicity will remain until actively removed by leadership. It is the responsibility of the winner in any rift to end a toxic animosity culture of hostilities and personal adversarialism. I cannot stress this enough. History is full of examples where the winners refused to live alongside the losers and rebuild the world together once the conflict was resolved. It never ends well. On the other hand, where the opposite has been true - South Africa's end of segregation with Mandela as president comes to mind as a good example of leadership here - people learn to put animosity behind them. A lot of people who have submitted code to Core (and previously) are skilled coders, after all, working from their vision. This vision doesn't have to be incompatible with Classic's vision in the slightest - it may just be a matter of slightly different feature priorities, with people intending to get everything in there anyway. (I'd also therefore like to praise Jonathan Toomim for not engaging in the rifting but focusing on solving the problem to most people's acceptance. Real MVP right there.)
Finally, some personal reflections
Unfortunately, I believe bitcoin development has lost touch with large-scale rollout necessities over the past year or so. At the moment, there are three use cases which all new features should seek to improve: Remittance. The act of sending money between individuals in different countries. Drop-in credit card replacement, from the perspectives of both the payer and the merchant (two different use cases). This means that a payment must be instant, easy, and much cheaper than a credit card settlement. These three use cases must be front left, right, and center when doing any design on the bitcoin network, as far as I'm concerned. They also reinforce each other when funds received by remittance don't have to go via fiat to be used for purchasing something. If there's no profit to be made in using bitcoin as a drop-in replacement for credit card payments, bitcoin will not be deployed at scale. Deployment and outcompeting legacy systems depend entirely on merchant financial gains from rollout. The story begins and ends with this observation. That's why I'm concerned when I'm looking at the features of 0.12. I don't see any features targeting one of these three use cases. Fact is, I see at least one feature severely degrading the drop-in capability of credit card replacement - RBF - and the lack of scaling severely jeopardizing, not to say ultimately removing, the profitability in replacing credit cards. What I see is instead engineering for the sake of engineering. The question of "who's the customer?" seems to have gotten lost in the process. While it's arguable that there's no customer as such in an open source project, there's nevertheless an importance in understanding where the front bowling pins are for a disruptive technology like this - and it's certainly not in the one-time initialization time of starting up a new node. I'd argue that the front bowling pins instead are the three use cases I listed above, and would love to see a stronger focus on tangible use cases moving forward even if people disagree with my choice of cases. Onward and upward. Bitcoin will recover and move on. Let's learn from this experience.
Why has raising the blocksize limit become so contentious?
I have been involved in Bitcoin for many years, but haven’t taken a position in this debate. In my recollection, the block size limit was implemented in the early days to reduce the risk of spam congesting the network. It was always intended to be raised if the network reached capacity. Now, I actually use Bitcoin on a daily basis. In the past year I’ve noticed periods of significant delays for transactions due to mempool backlog, even when using a high fee setting on a standard modern wallet. If you’ve ever sat there staring at fees.21.co waiting for your fucking transaction to go through but seeing the ridiculously low throughput of the modern Bitcoin network relative to its usage, you’ll know exactly how I feel about this issue: the network has reached capacity.
So my question is this, why are the current core developers/maintainers of Bitcoin so opposed to a hard fork to increase the block size limit? Hard forks are not inherently dangerous from a technical perspective (Monero for example hard forks every 6 months). Contentious forks are bad from an economic perspective. I have seen the lead maintainer claim that a hard fork block size increase won’t be introduced due to lack of widespread consensus. I have also seen a group of Bitcoin developers/blockstream employees campaign vehemently against raising the limit. Instead, segregated witness is proposed to lift transaction throughput, until a point where their second-layer payment networks are available. I have even seen a prominent developer, bizarrely, advocate reducing the block size. I wonder how regularly he uses Bitcoin to pay for things.
While I have no issues with segregated witness being introduced to fix malleability issues, nor with second-layer payment solutions built on top of the network - clearly, many do. Yet as I recall, not long ago there was general widespread support - even amongst the blockstream developers - for at least a 2 MB block size limit. So now a highly contentious “block size increase” SF is being proposed as a consensus, while a generally accepted small block size limit increase HF that was always intended to occur at this point is not? Clearly this has been bad for Bitcoin. This vicious civil war is hideous, I’ve rarely seen such vehemence on two sides of a technical debate (I am aware it has now become a proxy debate for other issues). My point it is that it IS a technical debate, and it should have a technical solution.
I’m given to understand that there is majority support for limiting the blocksize in this forum - can anyone clearly and lucidly articulate why we should not simply come together to support a hard fork and raise the blocksize to something reasonable - and in doing so possibly lower the consensus limit for segregated witness (which was frankly stupidly set at 95%), while blockstream can continue working on their second-layer solutions?
I remember when this community was all about adoption, being your own bank, real vigour and enthusiasm. Now that’s buried under the weight of hatred for the other side of the debate. But we’re all supposed to be on Bitcoin’s side here. Don’t let pseudo-political figures manipulate your passion for Bitcoin to their own ends: whether it’s Maxwell, Jihan Wu or theymos. I’ve heard this forum is heavily censored from free discussion. I’m choosing to keep an open mind about it, however. I will archive this post in several places in case it is removed due to censorship - which ironically would be incredibly revealing. Thanks
A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be
Bitcoin takes power away from the government, and gives it to the people. Bitcoin not only takes away power from governments, but also makes the legacy banking system obsolete. You think The Powers That Be will let this happen without a fight? Think again. Blockstream was formed for the purpose of stifling the growth of Bitcoin. No, they are not simply a greedy corporation that wishes to profit off of Bitcoin. The sole reason for Blockstream's existence is to cripple Bitcoin and make it useless. The following people have all been Blockstream employees, and are Bitcoin Core developers (besides Adam Back):
Adam Back (Co-Founder & former President, now Chief Executive Officer)
Blockstream received $76 million in funding from AXA, one of the largest multinational insurance corporations in the world, whose (former) CEO and Chairman, Henri de Castries, is also Chairman of the Steering Committee for the Bilderberg Group. Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin was to allow massive on-chain scaling so the entire world could use it. The 1 MB block size limit exists only to intentionally create problems for Bitcoin, driving up the fees, and making the coin useless. Adam Back was added to Blockstream for the sole reason that he has some "clout" because he was mentioned in Satoshi's whitepaper. A new leader was needed to replace Satoshi, and fight against his vision. This is Adam Back. The main communication channels (/Bitcoin, BitcoinTalk Forums, and Bitcoin.org) are all owned by a man named Michael Marquardt, AKA theymos. Theymos has most likely been threatened, or paid off by powerful people. /Bitcoin is completely censored for the purpose of controlling the narrative. The CSS of the subreddit was even drastically altered to hide the fact that hundreds of comments were being removed through systematic censorship. Any talk of raising the block size limit, or criticism of Blockstream or Core, will get you censored and banned. In order to take over Bitcoin, you must control the narrative, and trick people into thinking that crippling Bitcoin with high fees is a good thing. Bitcoin XT was created to try and alleviate Bitcoin's scaling problems. When this project gained traction, and Coinbase started testing with Bitcoin XT, Coinbase was removed from Bitcoin.org. These intimidation tactics from the BlockstreamCore regime are extremely common. There have been too many of these social attacks to even list. For example, Roger Ver is often called a scammer, a felon, and a convicted criminal who went to prison for selling explosives. These are the typical ad hominem attacks used. Roger Ver, along with thousands of other people sold harmless firecrackers on eBay. People play with firecrackers (at their own risk) for fun, and to have a good time. They are also technically explosives. The law on the sale of these was also never enforced, and many people bought them off eBay. So although Roger is technically a criminal, because he committed a "crime", and he technically DID sell "explosives", people try to make you think that maybe Roger was actually a dangerous domestic terrorist arms-dealer who sold explosives as weapons. Projects like Bitcoin Unlimited were created in an attempt to fix the scaling problems in Bitcoin, and gained widespread community support. But talk of BU in /Bitcoin was disallowed. BU was attacked viciously in every way shape and form. The developers were accused of running a scam, trying to purposely centralize Bitcoin, etc. BU was a major threat, because it would take power away from BlockstreamCore, and make Bitcoin great again. BU on many different occasions was attacked using exploits in its code, to shutdown BU nodes. These attacks were almost certainly done by members of Core, like Greg Maxwell. These events were widely publicized by /Bitcoin in an attempt to shame BU and prove that the developers are incompetent. Over time, many other blatantly obvious astroturfing campaigns took place in order to control the narrative. UASF, NO2X, AntBleed, and ASICBoost were all bogus astroturfing campaigns meant to stir up controversy where there was none, and to "rally the troops". In the early months of 2017, I witnessed a "community flippening" occur, in which there were more hardcore/legitimate members of the Bitcoin community in /btc, than in /Bitcoin. People were waking up to the censorship and social attacks that were occurring. The people who remain in /Bitcoin at this point are mostly newbies who have just entered the space, useful idiots who can't think for themselves and have undying loyalty to Core, and paid shills. After realizing that BlockstreamCore will never compromise, Bitcoin Cash was created to restore Satoshi's original vision. Bitcoin Cash was immediately attacked in many ways. It was called ChinaCoin in an attempt to trick people into thinking it's a centrally controlled Chinese scam coin. It was called Bcash (and sometimes Btrash) in an attempt to take Bitcoin out of the name. When users posted about Bitcoin Cash in /Bitcoin, they were directed to post to the fake /Bcash subreddit. Bitfinex and Trezor even listed the coin as "Bcash" even though this just confused people more, as Bitcoin Cash was never referred to as Bcash by any of the development teams. Bitcoin Cash was attacked relentlessly. When Coinbase and Bitstamp added Bitcoin Cash, /Bitcoin tried to rally the troops to boycott them. When the Bitcoin.com wallet added Bitcoin Cash, /Bitcoin attempted to rally the troops to leave hundreds of 1 star reviews on the app store. Eventually a popular tipping bot called "tippr" was invented. Over a couple months, this gained massive traction and increased adoption substantially. Tippr was attacked in recent hacking attacks, where password reset links were sent to the emails of Reddit accounts, the passwords of these accounts were changed by the attackers, and then the Bitcoin Cash in their tippr balance was stolen. This was one of the greatest mistakes of the BlockstreamCore regime. It is now blatantly obvious that the email accounts of these users were not compromised. It is also unlikely that this is an exploit in Reddit itself. Reddit is the EIGHTH most popular website in the world, according to Alexa rank. A zero day exploit that allows ANY REDDIT ACCOUNT to be taken over, could potentially sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars on the black market. Yet the exploit was used to steal maybe $5,000 bucks tops, from a Bitcoin Cash tip bot? How come the tip bots of other cryptocurrencies were not targeted? The answer is because it wasn't about the money! Bitcoin Cash is one of the greatest threats in the cryptocurrency space, and it is being specifically targeted in many attacks. I don't expect Reddit to reveal any details of how the tippr hack was done. Extremely powerful forces are behind the takeover of Bitcoin, and the attacks on Bitcoin Cash. For those of us that have been around a while, it's blatantly obvious what is happening.
My BitcoinTalk.org account has been hacked.. (11th july 2018), what now?
Hi, My account on bitcoin talk forum, was hacked / stolen 11th july 2018... (I just found about it today)... The account was using my other secondary email address on gmail which I didn't access recently because I was on vacation. I cannot login, I checked my inbox then noticed that on 11 july 2018 an email from bitcointalk informs me about the change of the associated BTCtalk email account to: [email protected] by IP address 184.108.40.206. None of these are mine, not the email nor the IP. Unfortunately I wasn't able to undone that action because I was on a trip. This is my Full Member account with 100 Merit +133 posts, registered on 19th September of 2012: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=67153 The russian hacker already managed to change some of my profile settings like location, signature, and added the quote "Be Strong", Also I remember having a BTC address: 1A6UzoDvPybimQg98B22yMoEF75wAZUdmt listed on that profile but not sure if it was linked properly or not (0 BTC & 0 transactions). By the way, something positive is that no one is posting shit with my profile yet, also last time active was July 31, 2018. Maybe my account is listed / auctioned on a black market right now? I would appreciate anyone willing to help me recover my account. I already read other related posts on similar cases which states that only Cyrus and Theymos are able to restore the accounts, however this doesn't seem to be a priority to them if you can't prove ownership.. Typically, the only acceptable method of proving ownership is by signing a message (including current date and desired new email address) using a Bitcoin address or PGP key associated with the account. A Bitcoin address or PGP key is associated with the account only if the account posted the key/address, sent it in a PM, or if it is still listed in the account's profile. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=497545.0 As I stated before, the hacker already managed to edit my profile deleting the listed address that I linked there.. so not sure if it is gonna be valid signing a message with that address before sending the PM to the mods, I have several other that I used on my wallet back in the days.. some I used to sign messages privately with other users via PM (not publicly) not sure if this counts and if the hacker deleted those PM's as well.. I remember doing a trade with SebastianJu through. Thanks in advance
"Why has raising the blocksize limit become so contentious?" (Removed from /r/bitcoin)
I posted this to /bitcoin a few minutes ago. It didn't appear in new, and when I logged out and checked, both the title and text of the post had been removed. It clearly doesn't violate a single one of the subreddit's rules. If this represents the true nature of the discussion/censorship on /bitcoin, as a long time user, I'm appalled and concerned. I've messaged the moderators asking what's going on, but this seems to confirm to me that the censorship is real and extreme, so I don't really expect to hear back. Full text:
I have been involved in Bitcoin for many years, but haven’t taken a position in this debate. In my recollection, the block size limit was implemented in the early days to reduce the risk of spam congesting the network. It was always intended to be raised if the network reached capacity. Now, I actually use Bitcoin on a daily basis. In the past year I’ve noticed periods of significant delays for transactions due to transaction backlog, even when using a high fee setting on a standard modern wallet. If you’ve ever sat there staring at fees.21.co waiting for your fucking transaction to go through but seeing the ridiculously low throughput of the modern Bitcoin network relative to its usage, you’ll know exactly how I feel about this debate: the network has reached capacity.
So my question is this, why are the current core developers/maintainers of Bitcoin so opposed to a hard fork to increase the block size limit? Hard forks are not inherently dangerous from a technical perspective (Monero for example hard forks every 6 months). Contentious forks are bad from an economic perspective. I have seen the lead maintainer claim that a hard fork block size increase won’t be introduced due to lack of widespread consensus. I have also seen a group of Bitcoin developers/blockstream employees campaign vehemently against raising the limit. Instead, segregated witness is proposed to lift transaction throughput, until a point where their second-layer payment networks are available. I have even seen a prominent developer, bizarrely, advocate reducing the block size. I wonder how regularly he uses Bitcoin to pay for things. While I have no issues with segregated witness being introduced to fix malleability issues, nor with second-layer payment solutions built on top of the network - clearly, many do. Yet as I recall, not long ago there was general widespread support - even amongst the blockstream developers - for at least a 2 MB block size limit. So now a highly contentious “block size increase” SF is being proposed as a consensus, while a generally accepted small block size limit increase HF that was always intended to occur at this point is not? Clearly this has been bad for Bitcoin. This vicious civil war is hideous, I’ve rarely seen such vehemence on two sides of a technical debate (I am aware it has now become a proxy debate for other issues). My point it is that it IS a technical debate, and it should have a technical solution.
I’m given to understand that there is majority support for limiting the blocksize in this forum - can anyone clearly and lucidly articulate why we should not simply come together to hard fork and raise the blocksize to something reasonable - and in doing so possibly lower the consensus limit for segregated witness (which was frankly stupidly set at 95%), and blockstream can continue working on their second-layer solutions? I remember when this community was all about adoption, being your own bank, real vigour and enthusiasm. Now that’s buried under the weight of hatred for the other side of the debate. But we’re all supposed to be on Bitcoin’s side here. Don’t let pseudo-political figures manipulate your passion for Bitcoin to their own ends: whether it’s Maxwell, Jihan Wu or theymos. I’ve heard this forum is heavily censored from free discussion. I’m choosing to keep an open mind about it, however. I will archive this post in several places in case it is removed due to censorship - which ironically would be incredibly revealing. Thanks
Edit: I just spoke with one of the moderators and it's been unbanned. If you want to contribute to the thread over there too, hopefully we can help keep it civil and coherent.
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc, February 2016: "A year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB". August 2017: "Every Bitcoin developer with experience agrees that 2MB blocks are not safe". Whether he's incompetent, corrupt, compromised, or insane, he's unqualified to work on Bitcoin.
Here's Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc posting on February 1, 2016:
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc
Meanwhile, there is one thing we do know with certainty: Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is either incompetent or corrupt or compromised or insane - or some combination of the above. Therefore Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is not qualified to be involved with Bitcoin. Background information
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc ... So why the fuck has Core/Blockstream done everything they can to obstruct this simple, safe scaling solution? And where is SegWit? When are we going to judge Core/Blockstream by their (in)actions - and not by their words?
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
Overheard on r\bitcoin: "And when will the network adopt the Segwit2x(tm) block size hardfork?" ~ u/DeathScythe676 // "I estimate that will happen at roughly the same time as hell freezing over." ~ u/nullc, One-Meg Greg mAXAwell, CTO of the failed shitty startup Blockstream
Either Greg Maxwell - an insane, toxic dev who denies reality - decides the blocksize.
Or the market decides the blocksize.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
"Either the main chain will scale, or a unhobbled chain that provides scaling (like Bitcoin Cash) will become the main chain - and thus the rightful holder of the 'Bitcoin' name. In other words: Either Bitcoin will get scaling - or scaling will get 'Bitcoin'." ~ u/Capt_Roger_Murdock
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
ELI85 BCC vs BTC, for Grandma (1) BCC has BigBlocks (max 8MB), BTC has SmallBlocks (max 1-2?MB); (2) BCC has StrongSigs (signatures must be validated and saved on-chain), BTC has WeakSigs (signatures can be discarded with SegWit); (3) BCC has SingleSpend (for zero-conf); BTC has Replace-by-Fee (RBF)
Bitcoin Cash is the original Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi Nakamoto (and not suppressed by the insane / incompetent / corrupt / compromomised / toxic Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell). Bitcoin Cash simply continues with Satoshi's original design and roadmap, whose success has always has been and always will be based on three essential features:
high on-chain market-based capacity supporting a greater number of faster and cheaper transactions on-chain;
strong on-chain cryptographic security guaranteeing that transaction signatures are always validated and saved on-chain;
prevention of double-spending guaranteeing that the same coin can only be spent once.
This means that Bitcoin Cash is the only version of Bitcoin which maintains support for:
BigBlocks, supporting increased on-chain transaction capacity - now supporting blocksizes up to 8MB (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "centrally planned blocksize" bug added by Core - which only supports 1-2MB blocksizes);
StrongSigs, enforcing mandatory on-chain signature validation - continuing to require miners to download, validate and save all transaction signatures on-chain (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "segregated witness" bug added by Core - which allows miners to discard or avoid downloading signature data);
SingleSpend, allowing merchants to continue to accept "zero confirmation" transactions (zero-conf) - facilitating small, in-person retail purchases (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) Replace-by-Fee (RBF) bug added by Core - which allows a sender to change the recipient and/or the amount of a transaction, after already sending it).
If you were holding Bitcoin (BTC) before the fork on August 1 (where you personally controlled your private keys) then you also automatically have an equal quantity of Bitcoin Cash (BCC, or BCH) - without the need to do anything.
Many exchanges and wallets are starting to support Bitcoin Cash. This includes more and more exchanges which have agreed to honor their customers' pre-August 1 online holdings on both forks - Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCC, or BCH).
SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco
SegWit is a "clever innovation" brought to you by clueless / corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs;
MERS is a "clever innovation" brought to you by reckless / corrupt Wall Street bankers;
SegWit and MERS both work by simply deleting crucial "ownership data" for transactions.
Of course, the "experts" (on Wall Street, and at AXA-owned Blockstream) present MERS and SegWit as "innovations" - as a way to "optimize" and "streamline" vast chains of transactions reflecting ownership and transfer of valuable items (ie, real-estate mortgages, and bitcoins). But, unfortunately, the "brilliant bat-shit insane approach" devised by the "geniuses" behind MERS and SegWit to do this is to simply delete the data which proved ownership and transfer of these items - information which is essential for legal purposes (in the case of mortgages), or security purposes (in the case of bitcoins).
SegWit allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for bitcoins - ie, SegWit supports deleting the cryptographic data specifying "who transmitted what bitcoins to whom" (as originally specified in Satoshi's whitepaper defining Bitcoin);
MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) allowed deleting the "chain of (legal) title" for real-estate mortgages - ie, MERS supported deleting the legal "notes" specifying "who transmitted what mortgages to whom" (as previously tracked by banks / mortgage lenders / originators / notaries / land registries / "cadasters", etc.)
So, the most pernicious aspect of SegWit may be that it encourages deleting all of Bitcoin's cryptographic security data - destroying the "chain of signatures" which (according to the white paper) are what define what a "bitcoin" actually is. Wow, deleting signatures with SegWit sounds bad. Can I avoid SegWit? Yes you can. To guarantee the long-term cryptographic, legal and financial security of your bitcoins:
You should avoid sending / receiving / holding Bitcoins using the dangerous, new "SegWit" addresses. (As far as I understand, "SegWit" bitcoin addresses all start with a "3".)
You should just use safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses - and avoid using unsafe "SegWit" addresses. (If I understand correctly, all "normal" Bitcoin addresses still start with a "1", while "SegWit" addresses always start with a "3".)
You can also use Bitcoin implementations which encourage using "normal" Bitcoin addresses. (As far as I understand, implementations such as Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic are being deployed mainly to support "normal", "non-SegWit" Bitcoin addresses - as well as market-based (bigger) blocksizes and (lower) fees.)
You can avoid Bitcoin implementations which require SegWit. (As far as I understand, SegWit2x, UASF/BIP148 are being deployed mainly to support "SegWit" Bitcoin addresses - as well as centrally-planned (smaller) blocksizes and (higher) fees).
MERS = "The dog ate your mortgage's chain of title". SegWit = "The dog ate your bitcoin's chain of signatures."
By deleting / losing the "chain of title" for mortgages stored in the MERS database (in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" being pushed by "clever" bankers on Wall Street), MERS caused a legal and financial catastrophe for mortgages - by making it impossible to (legally) prove who owns which properties.
By deleting / losing the "chain of signatures" for Bitcoins stored in SegWit addresses (in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" being pushed by "clever" devs at AXA-owned Blockstream), SegWit could end up causing a financial (and possibly also legal) catastrophe for Bitcoin - by making it impossible (or at least more complicated in many cases) to (cryptographically) prove who owns which bitcoins.
Wall Street-backed MERS = AXA-backed SegWit It is probably no coincidence that:
Clueless, corrupt bankers from Wall Street used MERS to recklessly delete the "chain of (legal) title" for people's mortgages;
And now clueless, corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream want to recklessly use SegWit to delete the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for people's bitcoins.
by supporting the most ignorant developers and "leaders" (lying Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CEO Adam Back, drooling authoritarian idiot Luke-Jr, vandal Peter Todd, etc);
by supporting a massive campaign of propaganda, censorship, and lies (on forums like r\bitcoin and sites like bitcointalk.org - both controlled by the corrupt censor u/Theymos) to try to force SegWit on the Bitcoin community.
Do any Core / Blockstream devs and supporters know about MERS - and recognize its dangerous parallels with SegWit? It would be interesting to hear from some of the "prominent" Core / Blockstream devs and supporters listed below to find out if they are aware of the dangerous similarities between SegWit and MERS:
Luke-Jr u/luke-jr - co-founder of and occasional contractor for Blockstream, in charge of Core's "BIP" numbering process, known for his [delusions] and authoritarianism - and for the messy SegWit-as-a-soft-fork kludge - now leading the brainwashed lemmings and sybils of r\bitcoin off the cliff, with his doomed UASF/BIP148;
Core / Blockstream devs might not know about MERS - but AXAdefinitely does While it is likely that most or all Core / Blockstream devs do not know about the MERS fiasco... ...it is 100% certain that people at AXA (the main owners of Blockstream) do know about MERS. This is because the global financial crisis which started in 2008 was caused by:
CDOs - collateralized debt obligations
MBSs - mortgage-backed securities
MERS - the company / database Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems which "lost" (deleted) millions of people's mortgage notes - leading to "clouded titles" which made possible the wave of foreclosure fraud and robo-signing, which eventually cost the "clever" banks tens of billions of dollars in losses.
Loans originated with MERS as the original mortgagee purport to separate the borrower’s promissory note, which is made payable to the originating lender, from the borrower’s conveyance of a mortgage, which purportedly is granted to MERS. If this separation is legally incorrect - as every state supreme court looking at the issue has agreed - then the security agreements do not name an actual mortgagee or beneficiary. The mortgage industry, however, has premised its proxy recording strategy on this separation, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “the note and mortgage are inseparable.” [Compare with the language from Satoshi's whitepaper: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."] If today’s courts take the Carpenter decision at its word, then what do we make of a document purporting to create a mortgage entirely independent of an obligation to pay? If the Supreme Court is right that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note, then a security agreement that purports to grant a mortgage independent of the promissory note attempts to convey something that cannot exist. [...] Many courts have held that a document attempting to convey an interest in realty fails to convey that interest if the document does not name an eligible grantee. Courts around the country have long held that “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void.”
The parallels between MERS and SegWit are obvious and inescapable.
MERS separated (and eventually deleted) the legal information regarding the "conveyance" (transfer) of ownership of "realty" (real estate)
SegWit segregates (and allows eventually deleting) the cryptographic information regarding the sending and receiving of bitcoins.
Note that I am not arguing here that SegWit could be vulnerable to attacks from a strictly legal perspective. (Although that may be possible to.) I am simply arguing that SegWit, because it encourages deleting the (cryptographic) signature data which defines "bitcoins", could eventually be vulnerable to attacks from a cryptographic perspective. But I heard that SegWit is safe and tested! Yeah, we've heard a lot of lies from Blockstream, for years - and meanwhile, they've only succeeded in destroying Bitcoin's market cap, due to unnecessarily high fees and unnecessarily slow transactions. Now, in response to those legal-based criticisms of SegWit in the article from nChain, several so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" have tried to rebut that those arguments from nChain were somehow "flawed". But if you read the rebuttals of these "Bitcoin legal experts", they sound a lot like the clueless "experts" who were cheerleading MERS for its "efficiency" - and who ended up costing tens billions of dollars in losses when the "chain of title" for mortgages held in the MERS database became "clouded" after all the crucial "ownership data" got deleted in the name of "efficiency" and "optimization". In their attempt to rebut the article by nChain, these so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" use soothing language like "optimization" and "pragmatic" to try to lull you into believing that deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for your bitcoins will be just as safe as deleting the "chain of (legal) notes" for mortgages: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-legal-experts-nchain-segwit-criticisms-flawed/ The (unsigned!) article on CoinDesk attempting to rebut Nguyen's article on nChain starts by stating:
Nguyen's criticisms fly in the face of what has emerged as broad support for the network optimization, which has been largely embraced by the network's developers, miners and startups as a pragmatic step forward.
Then it goes on to quote "Bitcoin legal experts" who claim that using SegWit to delete Bitcoin's cryptographic signatures will be just fine:
Marco Santori, a fintech lawyer who leads the blockchain tech team at Cooley LLP, for example, took issue with what he argued was the confused framing of the allegation. Santori told CoinDesk:
"It took the concept of what is a legal contract, and took the position that if you have a blockchain signature it has something to do with a legal contract."
Stephen Palley, counsel at Washington, DC, law firm Anderson Kill, remarked similarly that the argument perhaps put too much weight on the idea that the "signatures" involved in executing transactions on the bitcoin blockchain were or should be equivalent to signatures used in digital documents.
"It elides the distinction between signature and witness data and a digital signature, and they're two different things," Palley said.
"There are other ways to cryptographically prove a transaction is correctly signed other than having a full node," said BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp. "The assumption that if a transaction is in the blockchain, it's probably valid, is a fairly good guarantee." Legal experts asserted that, because of this design, it's possible to prove that the transaction occurred between parties, even if those involved did not store signatures. For this reason, Coin Center director Jerry Brito argued that nChain is overstating the issues that would arise from the absence of this data. "If you have one-time proof that you have the bitcoin, if you don't have it and I have it, logically it was signed over to me. As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine," he said.
There are several things you can notice here:
These so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" are downplaying the importance of signatures in Bitcoin - just like the "experts" behind MERS downplayed the importance of "notes" for mortgages.
Satoshi said that a bitcoin is a "chain of digital signatures" - but these "Bitcoin legal experts" are now blithely asserting that we can simply throw the "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - and we can be "fairly" certain that everything will "probably" be ok.
The "MERS = SegWit" argument which I'm making is not based on interpreting Bitcoin signatures in any legal sense (although some arguments could be made along those lines).
Instead, I'm just arguing that any "ownership database" which deletes its "ownership data" (whether it's MERS or SegWit) is doomed to end in disaster - whether that segregated-and-eventually-deleted "ownership data" is based on law (with MERS), or cryptography (with SegWit).
Who's right - Satoshi or the new "Bitcoin experts"? You can make up your own mind. Personally, I will never send / receive / store large sums of money using any "SegWit" bitcoin addresses. This, is not because of any legal considerations - but simply because I want the full security of "the chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - which, according to the whitepaper, is the very definition of what a bitcoin "is". Here are the words of Satoshi, from the whitepaper, regarding the "chain of digital signatures": https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Does that "chain of digital signatures" sound like something you'd want to throw in the trash??
The "clever devs" from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of so-called "Bitcoin legal experts) say "Trust us, it is safe to delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of bitcoins". They're pushing "SegWit" - the most radical change in the history of Bitcoin. As I have repeatedly discussed, SegWit weakens Bitcoin's security model.
The people who support Satoshi's original Bitcoin (and clients which continue to implement it: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Classic - all supporting "Bitcoin Cash" - ie "Bitcoin" without SegWit) say "Trust no one. You should never delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of your bitcoins."
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.
So, according to Satoshi, a "chain of digital signatures" is the very definition of what a bitcoin is.
Meanwhile according to some ignorant / corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of "Bitcoin legal experts") now suddenly it's "probably" "fairly" safe to just throw Satoshi's "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - all in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" - because they're so very clever.
Who do you think is right? Finally, here's another blatant lie from SegWit supporters (and small-block supporters) Let's consider this other important quote from Satoshi's whitepaper above:
A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Remember, this is what "small blockers" have always been insisting for years. They've constantly been saying that "blocks need to be 1 MB!!1 Waah!1!" - even though several years ago the Cornell study showed that blocks could already be 4 MB, with existing hardware and bandwidth. But small-blockers have always insisted that everyone should store the entire blockchain - so they can verify their own transactions. But hey, wait a minute! Now they turn around and try to get you to use SegWit - which allows deleting the very data which insisted that you should download and save locally to verify your own transactions! So, once again, this exposes the so-called "arguments" of small-blocks supporters as being fake arguments and lies:
On the one hand, they (falsely) claim that small blocks are necessary in order for everyone to be run "full nodes" because (they claim) that's the only way people can personally verify all their own transactions. By the way, there are already several errors here with what they're saying:
Actually "full nodes" is a misnomer (Blockstream propaganda). The correct terminology is "full wallets", because only miners are actually "nodes".
Actually 1 MB "max blocksize" is not necessary for this. The Cornell study showed that we could easily be using 4 MB or 8 MB blocks by now - since, as everyone knows, the average size of most web pages is already over 2 MB, and everyone routinely downloads 2 MB web pages in a matter of seconds, so in 10 minutes you could download - and upload - a lot more than just 2 MB. But whatever.
On the other hand, they support SegWit - and the purpose of SegWit is to allow people to delete the "signature data".
This conflicts with their argument the everyone should personally verify all their own transactions. For example, above, Coin Center director Jerry Brito was saying: "As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine."
So which is it? For years, the "small blockers" told us we needed to all be able to personally verify everything on our own node. And now SegWit supporters are telling us: "Naah - you can just rely on someone else's node."
Plus, while the transactions are still being sent around on the wire, the "signature data" is still there - it's just "segregated" - so you're not getting any savings on bandwidth anyways - you'd only get the savings if you delete the "signature data" from storage.
Storage is cheap and plentiful, it's never been the "bottleneck" in the system. Bandwidth is the main bottleneck - and SegWit doesn't help that at all, because it still transmits all the data.
Conclusion So if you're confused by all the arguments from small-blockers and SegWitters, there's a good reason: their "arguments" are total bullshit and lies. They're attempting to contradict and destroy:
Satoshi's original design of Bitcoin as a "chain of digital signatures":
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership."
Satoshi's plan for scaling Bitcoin by simply increasing the goddamn blocksize:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
The the notorious mortgage database MERS, pushed by clueless and corrupt Wall Street bankers, deleted the "chain of (legal) title" which had been essential to show who conveyed what mortgages to whom - leading to "clouded titles", foreclosure fraud, and robo-signing.
The notorious SegWit soft fork / kludge, pushed by clueless and corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs, allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" which is essential to show who sent how many bitcoins to whom - which could lead to a catastrophe for people who foolishly use SegWit addresses (which can be avoided: unsafe "SegWit" bitcoin addresses start with a "3" - while safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses start with a "1").
Stay safe and protect your bitcoin investment: Avoid SegWit transactions.
[See the comments from me directly below for links to several articles on MERS, foreclosure fraud, robo-signing, "clouded title", etc.]
Greg Maxwell /u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream) has sent me two private messages in response to my other post today (where I said "Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream."). In response to his private messages, I am publicly posting my reply, here:
Note: Greg Maxell nullc sent me 2 short private messages criticizing me today. For whatever reason, he seems to prefer messaging me privately these days, rather than responding publicly on these forums. Without asking him for permission to publish his private messages, I do think it should be fine for me to respond to them publicly here - only quoting 3 phrases from them, namely: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity" LOL. There was nothing particularly new or revealing in his messages - just more of the same stuff we've all heard before. I have no idea why he prefers responding to me privately these days. Everything below is written by me - I haven't tried to upload his 2 PMs to me, since he didn't give permission (and I didn't ask). The only stuff below from his 2 PMs is the 3 phrases already mentioned: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity". The rest of this long wall of text is just my "open letter to Greg." TL;DR: The code that maximally uses the available hardware and infrastructure will win - and there is nothing Core/Blockstream can do to stop that. Also, things like the Berlin Wall or the Soviet Union lasted for a lot longer than people expected - but, conversely, the also got swept away a lot faster than anyone expected. The "vote" for bigger blocks is an ongoing referendum - and Classic is running on 20-25% of the network (and can and will jump up to the needed 75% very fast, when investors demand it due to the inevitable "congestion crisis") - which must be a massive worry for Greg/Adam/Austin and their backers from the Bilderberg Group. The debate will inevitably be decided in favor of bigger blocks - simply because the market demands it, and the hardware / infrastructure supports it. Hello Greg Maxwell nullc (CTO of Blockstream) - Thank you for your private messages in response to my post. I respect (most of) your work on Bitcoin, but I think you were wrong on several major points in your messages, and in your overall economic approach to Bitcoin - as I explain in greater detail below: Correcting some inappropriate terminology you used As everybody knows, Classic or Unlimited or Adaptive (all of which I did mention specifically in my post) do not support "340GB" blocks (which I did not mention in my post). It is therefore a straw-man for you to claim that big-block supporters want "340GB" blocks. Craig Wright may want that - but nobody else supports his crazy posturing and ridiculous ideas. You should know that what actual users / investors (and Satoshi) actually do want, is to let the market and the infrastructure decide on the size of actual blocks - which could be around 2 MB, or 4 MB, etc. - gradually growing in accordance with market needs and infrastructure capabilities (free from any arbitrary, artificial central planning and obstructionism on the part of Core/Blockstream, and its investors - many of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the current debt-backed fiat system). You yourself (nullc) once said somewhere that bigger blocks would probably be fine - ie, they would not pose a decentralization risk. (I can't find the link now - maybe I'll have time to look for it later.) I found the link: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/ I am also surprised that you now seem to be among those making unfounded insinuations that posters such as myself must somehow be "paid off" - as if intelligent observers and participants could not decide on their own, based on the empirical evidence, that bigger blocks are needed, when the network is obviously becoming congested and additional infrastructure is obviously available. Random posters on Reddit might say and believe such conspiratorial nonsense - but I had always thought that you, given your intellectual abilities, would have been able to determine that people like me are able to arrive at supporting bigger blocks quite entirely on our own, based on two simple empirical facts, ie:
the infrastructure supports bigger blocks now;
the market needs bigger blocks now.
In the present case, I will simply assume that you might be having a bad day, for you to erroneously and groundlessly insinuate that I must be "paid off" in order to support bigger blocks. Using Occam's Razor The much simpler explanation is that bigger-block supporters believe will get "paid off" from bigger gains for their investment in Bitcoin. Rational investors and users understand that bigger blocks are necessary, based on the apparent correlation (not necessarily causation!) between volume and price (as mentioned in my other post, and backed up with graphs). And rational network capacity planners (a group which you should be in - but for some mysterious reason, you're not) also understand that bigger blocks are necessary, and quite feasible (and do not pose any undue "centralization risk".) As I have been on the record for months publicly stating, I understand that bigger blocks are necessary based on the following two objective, rational reasons:
because I've seen the empirical research in the field (from guys like Gavin and Toomim) showing that the network infrastructure (primarily bandwidth and latency - but also RAM and CPU) would also support bigger blocks now (I believe they showed that 3-4MB blocks would definitely work fine on the network now - possibly even 8 MB - without causing undue centralization).
Bigger-block supporters are being objective; smaller-block supporters are not I am surprised that you no longer talk about this debate in those kind of objective terms:
bandwidth, latency (including Great Firewall of China), RAM, CPU;
At this point, the burden is on guys like you (nullc) to explain why you support a so-called scaling "roadmap" which is not aligned with:
simple, rational investment policy; and
simple, rational capacity planning
The burden is also on guys like you to show that you do not have a conflict of interest, due to Blockstream's highly-publicized connections (via insurance giant AXA - whose CED is also the Chairman of the Bilderberg Group; and companies such as the "Big 4" accounting firm PwC) to the global cartel of debt-based central banks with their infinite money-printing. In a nutshell, the argument of big-block supporters is simple: If the hardware / network infrastructure supports bigger blocks (and it does), and if the market demands it (and it does), then we certainly should use bigger blocks - now. You have never provided a counter-argument to this simple, rational proposition - for the past few years. If you have actual numbers or evidence or facts or even legitimate concerns (regarding "centralization risk" - presumably your only argument) then you should show such evidence. But you never have. So we can only assume either incompetence or malfeasance on your part. As I have also publicly and privately stated to you many times, with the utmost of sincerity: We do of course appreciate the wealth of stellar coding skills which you bring to Bitcoin's cryptographic and networking aspects. But we do not appreciate the obstructionism and centralization which you also bring to Bitcoin's economic and scaling aspects. Bitcoin is bigger than you. The simple reality is this: If you can't / won't let Bitcoin grow naturally, then the market is going to eventually route around you, and billions (eventually trillions) of investor capital and user payments will naturally flow elsewhere. So: You can either be the guy who wrote the software to provide simple and safe Bitcoin scaling (while maintaining "reasonable" decentralization) - or the guy who didn't. The choice is yours. The market, and history, don't really care about:
whether you yourself might have been "paid off" (or under a non-disclosure agreement written perhaps by some investors associated the Bilderberg Group and the legacy debt-based fiat money system which they support), or
whether or not you might be clueless about economics.
Crypto and/or Bitcoin will move on - with or without you and your obstructionism. Bigger-block supporters, including myself, are impartial By the way, my two recent posts this past week on the Craig Wright extravaganza...
...should have given you some indication that I am being impartial and objective, and I do have "integrity" (and I am not "paid off" by anybody, as you so insultingly insinuated). In other words, much like the market and investors, I don't care who provides bigger blocks - whether it would be Core/Blockstream, or Bitcoin Classic, or (the perhaps confusingly-named) "Bitcoin Unlimited" (which isn't necessarily about some kind of "unlimited" blocksize, but rather simply about liberating users and miners from being "limited" by controls imposed by any centralized group of developers, such as Core/Blockstream and the Bilderbergers who fund you). So, it should be clear by now I don't care one way or the other about Gavin personally - or about you, or about any other coders. I care about code, and arguments - regardless of who is providing such things - eg:
When Gavin didn't demand crypto proof from Craig, and you said you would have: I publicly criticized Gavin - and I supported you.
When you continue to impose needless obstactles to bigger blocks, then I continue to criticize you.
In other words, as we all know, it's not about the people. It's about the code - and what the market wants, and what the infrastructure will bear. You of all people should know that that's how these things should be decided. Fortunately, we can take what we need, and throw away the rest. Your crypto/networking expertise is appreciated; your dictating of economic parameters is not. As I have also repeatedly stated in the past, I pretty much support everything coming from you, nullc:
your crypto and networking and game-theoretical expertise,
your extremely important work on Confidential Transactions / homomorphic encryption.
your desire to keep Bitcoin decentralized.
And I (and the network, and the market/investors) will always thank you profusely and quite sincerely for these massive contributions which you make. But open-source code is (fortunately) à la carte. It's mix-and-match. We can use your crypto and networking code (which is great) - and we can reject your cripple-code (artificially small 1 MB blocks), throwing it where it belongs: in the garbage heap of history. So I hope you see that I am being rational and objective about what I support (the code) - and that I am also always neutral and impartial regarding who may (or may not) provide it. And by the way: Bitcoin is actually not as complicated as certain people make it out to be. This is another point which might be lost on certain people, including:
And that point is this: The crypto code behind Bitcoin actually is very simple. And the networking code behind Bitcoin is actually also fairly simple as well. Right now you may be feeling rather important and special, because you're part of the first wave of development of cryptocurrencies. But if the cryptocurrency which you're coding (Core/Blockstream's version of Bitcoin, as funded by the Bilderberg Group) fails to deliver what investors want, then investors will dump you so fast your head will spin. Investors care about money, not code. So bigger blocks will eventually, inevitably come - simply because the market demand is there, and the infrastructure capacity is there. It might be nice if bigger blocks would come from Core/Blockstream. But who knows - it might actually be nicer (in terms of anti-fragility and decentralization of development) if bigger blocks were to come from someone other than Core/Blockstream. So I'm really not begging you - I'm warning you, for your own benefit (your reputation and place in history), that: Either way, we are going to get bigger blocks. Simply because the market wants them, and the hardware / infrastructre can provide them. And there is nothing you can do to stop us. So the market will inevitably adopt bigger blocks either with or without you guys - given that the crypto and networking tech behind Bitcoin is not all that complex, and it's open-source, and there is massive pent-up investor demand for cryptocurrency - to the tune of multiple billions (or eventually trillions) of dollars. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Regarding the "success" which certain small-block supports are (prematurely) gloating about, during this time when a hard-fork has not happened yet: they should bear in mind that the market has only begun to speak. And the first thing it did when it spoke was to dump about 20-25% of Core/Blockstream nodes in a matter of weeks. (And the next thing it did was Gemini added Ethereum trading.) So a sizable percentage of nodes are already using Classic. Despite desperate, irrelevant attempts of certain posters on these forums to "spin" the current situation as a "win" for Core - it is actually a major "fail" for Core. Because if Core/Blocksteam were not "blocking" Bitcoin's natural, organic growth with that crappy little line of temporary anti-spam kludge-code which you and your minions have refused to delete despite Satoshi explicitly telling you to back in 2010 ("MAX_BLOCKSIZE = 1000000"), then there would be something close to 0% nodes running Classic - not 25% (and many more addable at the drop of a hat). This vote is ongoing. This "voting" is not like a normal vote in a national election, which is over in one day. Unfortunately for Core/Blockstream, the "voting" for Classic and against Core is actually two-year-long referendum. It is still ongoing, and it can rapidly swing in favor of Classic at any time between now and Classic's install-by date (around January 1, 2018 I believe) - at any point when the market decides that it needs and wants bigger blocks (ie, due to a congestion crisis). You know this, Adam Back knows this, Austin Hill knows this, and some of your brainwashed supporters on censored forums probably know this too. This is probably the main reason why you're all so freaked out and feel the need to even respond to us unwashed bigger-block supporters, instead of simply ignoring us. This is probably the main reason why Adam Back feels the need to keep flying around the world, holding meetings with miners, making PowerPoint presentations in English and Chinese, and possibly also making secret deals behind the scenes. This is also why Theymos feels the need to censor. And this is perhaps also why your brainwashed supporters from censored forums feel the need to constantly make their juvenile, content-free, drive-by comments (and perhaps also why you evidently feel the need to privately message me your own comments now). Because, once again, for the umpteenth time in years, you've seen that we are not going away. Every day you get another worrisome, painful reminder from us that Classic is still running on 25% of "your" network. And everyday get another worrisome, painful reminder that Classic could easily jump to 75% in a matter of days - as soon as investors see their $7 billion wealth starting to evaporate when the network goes into a congestion crisis due to your obstructionism and insistence on artificially small 1 MB blocks. If your code were good enough to stand on its own, then all of Core's globetrotting and campaigning and censorship would be necessary. But you know, and everyone else knows, that your cripple-code does not include simple and safe scaling - and the competing code (Classic, Unlimited) does. So your code cannot stand on its own - and that's why you and your supporters feel that it's necessary to keep up the censorship and and the lies and the snark. It's shameful that a smart coder like you would be involved with such tactics. Oppressive regimes always last longer than everyone expects - but they also also collapse faster than anyone expects. We already have interesting historical precedents showing how grassroots resistance to centralized oppression and obstructionism tends to work out in the end. The phenomenon is two-fold:
The oppression usually drags on much longer than anyone expects; and
The liberation usually happens quite abruptly - much faster than anyone expects.
The Berlin Wall stayed up much longer than everyone expected - but it also came tumbling down much faster than everyone expected. Examples of opporessive regimes that held on surprisingly long, and collapsed surpisingly fast, are rather common - eg, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Both examples are actually quite germane to the case of Blockstream/Core/Theymos - as those despotic regimes were also held together by the fragile chewing gum and paper clips of denialism and censorship, and the brainwashed but ultimately complacent and fragile yes-men that inevitably arise in such an environment.) The Berlin Wall did indeed seem like it would never come down. But the grassroots resistance against it was always there, in the wings, chipping away at the oppression, trying to break free. And then when it did come down, it happened in a matter of days - much faster than anyone had expected. That's generally how these things tend to go:
oppression and obstructionism drag on forever, and the people oppressing freedom and progress erroneously believe that Core/Blockstream is "winning" (in this case: Blockstream/Core and you and Adam and Austin - and the clueless yes-men on censored forums like r\bitcoin who mindlessly support you, and the obedient Chinese miners who, thus far, have apparently been to polite to oppose you) ;
then one fine day, the market (or society) mysteriously and abruptly decides one day that "enough is enough" - and the tsunami comes in and washes the oppressors away in the blink of an eye.
So all these non-entities with their drive-by comments on these threads and their premature gloating and triumphalism are irrelevant in the long term. The only thing that really matters is investors and users - who are continually applying grassroots pressure on the network, demanding increased capacity to keep the transactions flowing (and the price rising). And then one day: the Berlin Wall comes tumbling down - or in the case of Bitcoin: a bunch of mining pools have to switch to Classic, and they will do switch so fast it will make your head spin. Because there will be an emergency congestion crisis where the network is causing the price to crash and threatening to destroy $7 billion in investor wealth. So it is understandable that your supports might sometimes prematurely gloat, or you might feel the need to try to comment publicly or privately, or Adam might feel the need to jet around the world. Because a large chunk of people have rejected your code. And because many more can and will - and they'll do in the blink of an eye. Classic is still out there, "waiting in the wings", ready to be installed, whenever the investors tell the miners that it is needed. Fortunately for big-block supporters, in this "election", the polls don't stay open for just one day, like in national elections. The voting for Classic is on-going - it runs for two years. It is happening now, and it will continue to happen until around January 1, 2018 (which is when Classic-as-an-option has been set to officially "expire"). To make a weird comparison with American presidential politics: It's kinda like if either Hillary or Trump were already in office - but meanwhile there was also an ongoing election (where people could change their votes as often as they want), and the day when people got fed up with the incompetent incumbent, they can throw them out (and install someone like Bernie instead) in the blink of an eye. So while the inertia does favor the incumbent (because people are lazy: it takes them a while to become informed, or fed up, or panicked), this kind of long-running, basically never-ending election favors the insurgent (because once the incumbent visibly screws up, the insurgent gets adopted - permanently). Everyone knows that Satoshi explicitly defined Bitcoin to be a voting system, in and of itself. Not only does the network vote on which valid block to append next to the chain - the network also votes on the very definition of what a "valid block" is. Go ahead and re-read the anonymous PDF that was recently posted on the subject of how you are dangerously centralizing Bitcoin by trying to prevent any votes from taking place: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4hxlquhoh_a_warning_regarding_the_onset_of_centralised/ The insurgent (Classic, Unlimited) is right (they maximally use available bandwidth) - while the incumbent (Core) is wrong (it needlessly throws bandwidth out the window, choking the network, suppressing volume, and hurting the price). And you, and Adam, and Austin Hill - and your funders from the Bilderberg Group - must be freaking out that there is no way you can get rid of Classic (due to the open-source nature of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin). Cripple-code will always be rejected by the network. Classic is already running on about 20%-25% of nodes, and there is nothing you can do to stop it - except commenting on these threads, or having guys like Adam flying around the world doing PowerPoints, etc. Everything you do is irrelevant when compared against billions of dollars in current wealth (and possibly trillions more down the road) which needs and wants and will get bigger blocks. You guys no longer even make technical arguments against bigger blocks - because there are none: Classic's codebase is 99% the same as Core, except with bigger blocks. So when we do finally get bigger blocks, we will get them very, very fast: because it only takes a few hours to upgrade the software to keep all the good crypto and networking code that Core/Blockstream wrote - while tossing that single line of 1 MB "max blocksize" cripple-code from Core/Blockstream into the dustbin of history - just like people did with the Berlin Wall.
Jun 1, 2019 - Explore CharlieBitcoins's board "Crypto Memes" on Pinterest. See more ideas about Memes, Bitcoin mining, What is bitcoin mining. After you’re fully synced close Bitcoin Core and open the data directory which is located by default in ~/.bitcoin — in here you’ll see the wallet.dat file. If this is a fresh install with ... from #bitcoin: [5:57pm] <theymos> bcb: I'm working on the forum. [5:59pm] <Ontolog> theymos: did you wind up handing out that 50 BTC to anyone... User:Theymos/Draft Securing Wallet. From Bitcoin Wiki < User:Theymos. Jump to: navigation, search. The phrase "be your own bank" is often used with Bitcoin, and while it accurately conveys Bitcoin's ability to empower people, it also hints at the increased responsibility that Bitcoin users must accept. Unlike at a traditional bank: If you lose your wallet file, or forget your wallet password ... User:Theymos/Paper Wallet. From Bitcoin Wiki < User:Theymos. Jump to: navigation, search. Casascius holding early paper wallets. In the most specific sense, a paper wallet contains all of the data necessary to generate any number of Bitcoin private keys, forming a wallet of keys. However, people often use the term to mean any way of storing bitcoins offline as a physical document. This second ...
Upcoming videos on Bitcoins censorship by r/theymos, Blockstreams connections to the banks, How Blockstream took over Bitcoins development, as well as videos on Asicboost, Jihan Wu, Roger Ver and ... I recently ordered some basic gear from Stanley including a big vacuum bottle, a couple of small basic cooksets and some flasks. Here's a look at the gear when I opened the box. NOTE: While I ... The Crypto Degens Show We're is a collective of degenerates interested in #crypto #bitcoin #fiat and most importantly fucking shit up 0:00-2:00 r/bitcoin red... i opened up these accounts because not everyone wants to do patreon, so i got a bitcoin wallet & paypal wallet because of the demonitization aypocalypse. thank you for supportting real people like me Gossip Room est une communauté sur les réseaux sociaux, créée il y a 7 ans, qui regroupe aujourd’hui des millions de passionnés d’actualité TV, people, série...