A decentralized currency where six (6), yes SIX!!! SIX fucking people can call off an attack which was going to affect the whole currency? What happened to the decentralization? What happened to no authority? Does Bitcoin have a CEO!!! Sure does fucking feel like it now, doesn't it? Dear developers, I implore you to propose software updates that makes this sort of attack in the future extremely difficult. Our nodes should be run in ways so that any future attackers can't benefit from it, and if there are any additional updates that could make this sort of attacks more difficult we should explore and implement them ASAP. Dear users, I implore you to not to forget who were the trailblazers, and who gave-up at the end because there was no other option left. Make note of the antagonistic natures of the people that waited till the last second to give up on this war against bitcoin. They did their best to take over Bitcoin. They made sure they did everything to take over Bitcoin. They persevered. They gave up after they realized they are going to lose for sure. Do not treat this act from them as a kind gesture, they made this decision for their own survival, not for Bitcoin. Boycott and stop using the services provided by these players. They may change the name of their services and company and open new ones with a fresh reputation, but don't get fooled by it. I will never use these services again: Businesses to avoid:https://www.bitmain.com/https://shapeshift.io/https://www.bitgo.com/https://xapo.com/https://bloq.com/https://blockchain.info/https://www.blockchain.com/https://bitpay.com/http://dcg.co/https://www.btcc.com/ Names to remember: Mike Belshe Wences Casares Jihan Wu Jeff Garzik Peter Smith Erik Voorhees Roger Ver Barry Silbert Bobby Lee Don't forget, this was a shameful episode in Bitcoin that we got out from. I hope this has taught everyone a lesson to be more vigilant of such future takeovers. They will back smarter and stronger. PS: Please let me know if more people and businesses should be added to this list, along with the reason why. EDIT: Added Roger Ver, and blockchain.info duh! Added bitpay, Barry Silbert, Bobby lee...
Finally. Copay malware also out of the wallet list in bitcoin.org
[–]jimmytruelove [score hidden] 11 hours ago
What's this?? What CoPay malware?? I use CoPay I'm worried
[–]blurrech[S] [score hidden] 10 hours ago
The only mention of malware on that page is a duplicate issue. Supporting one side or other in a proposed hard fork does not make a wallet malware. This is needless scaremongering. The BCH fork proved the resilience of the blockchain to minority forks - when the 8% not backing segwit2x become a minority chain, everything will be fine.
[–]jimmytruelove [score hidden] 10 hours ago
Can you explain in layman's terms what's wrong with CoPay? I have 3 wallets on their desktop and iOS client with a not small amount of BTC... I tried reading through the link above but unfortunately I don't understand.
13057123841 [score hidden] 10 hours ago
Come November they won't be running Bitcoin.
SpeedflyChris [score hidden] 10 hours ago
You're assuming that the non-2x version of Bitcoin will be considered the "main" version come november. At present a significant part of the hashrate is slated to leave.
13057123841 [score hidden] 9 hours ago
That doesn't matter.
L.O.L. The shill accounts at /Bitcoin keep trying to spin and spin but the truth keep coming out. The majority of miners/companies/wallets are ditching Bitcoin Core and they still try to downplay it, crooks being crooks to the end.
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6u8zp1/blockstream_theres_no_upgrade_just_some_companies/ Blockstream: There's no upgrade, just some companies leaving to make an altcoin. This is what they call "some companies": Bitcoin Scaling Agreement at Consensus 2017 The group of signed companies represents a critical mass of the bitcoin ecosystem. As of May 25, this group represents: 58 companies located in 22 countries 83.28% of hashing power 5.1 billion USD monthly on chain transaction volume 20.5 million bitcoin wallets
I am really surprised that paleh0rse isn't banned on /Bitcoin yet, that guy kept telling the truth over there at North Corea, salute, my friend.
Why NYA is an attack on Bitcoin and why it will fail (long)
I wrote a rather lengthy response to a reddit post that I think is worth sharing, especially for newcomers to dispell some false narratives about S2X and Barry Silberts' New-York Agreement aka hostile takeover attempt of Bitcoin that is doomed to fail.
big block hard-liners wanted block size only, no SegWit.
Which doesn't make any logical sense. A lot of fud was actively being spread about how segwit was unsafe (such as the ANYONECANSPEND fud) but segwit is ofcourse working as intended thanks to the world class engineering of the Bitcoin Core developers. This led to the suspicion that BitMain was behind the opposition of segwit. BitMain miners use "covert AsicBoost" which is a technique that allows their rigs to use less electricity than competing mining equipment. However, segwit introduced changes to Bitcoin that made using covert AsicBoost impossible, which would explain their fierce opposition to segwit. We're talking big money here - the AsicBoost advantage is worth US$ 100 million according to estimates of experts. After segwit was finalized, the Bitcoin software was programmed to activate segwit but not before 95% of the hashpower signalled to be ready. After all, miners are tasked with creating valid blocks and should be given the opportunity to update their software for protocol changes such as segwit. As a courtesy to the miners, the Bitcoin software basically said: "ok, segwit is here, but I'll politely hold off its activation until 95% of you say that you're ready to deal with this protocol change". Sadly, mining is heavily centralized, and segwit was never getting activated due to the opposition of a few or perhaps even a single person: Jihan Wu of BitMain. As an aside, the centralization of hash power is also a direct result of AsicBoost. How this works: since AsicBoosted rigs are able to mine more efficiently than their competitors, these rigs drive up the difficulty and with that the average amount of hashes required to find a block. This in turn causes less efficient rigs to mine at a loss because they need to expend more energy to find a block. As a result, BitMain competitors got pushed out and BitMain became the dominant self-mining ASIC manufacturer. After segwit was finalized, it required 95% of the hashpower to activate but it never gained more than around 30%. So 70% of hash power abused the courtesy of the Bitcoin software to wait until they were ready for activation and refused to give the go ahead. This went on for months and worst case it would have taken until August 2018 before segwit would activate.
let's do a compromise- we do SegWit AND we hard fork
In March 2017 a pseudonymous user called Shaolin Fry created BIP148 which is a softfork that invalidates any block that wouldn't signal segwit readiness starting August 1st 2017. This also became known as the UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork, as opposed to the original miner-activated soft fork that didn't work as intended). This patch saw significant adoption and miners would soon be forced to signal segwit or else see their blocks being invalidated by the network, which would cause them significant financial losses. In May 2017 so after BIP148, the backroom New-York Agreement (NYA) was created by the Digital Currency Group of Barry Silbert together with businesses in the Bitcoin space such as BitPay and almost all miners. The NYA was the beginning of an outright misinformation campaign. The NYA was trumpeted to be a "compromise". Miners would finally agree to activate segwit. In return, Bitcoin would hardfork and double its capacity on top of the doubling already achieved by segwit. In reality, BIP148 was already going to force miners to signal the activation of segwit. Also, developers and most users were notably absent in this NYA. So, given that segwit was already unstoppable because of BIP148, the parties around the table had to "compromise" to do something that they all wanted: hardfork Bitcoin to increase its capacity. Or, is it all in fact really about increasing capacity? After all, segwit already achieved this. Bcash was created which doubled block size as well but without segwit. And then there is good old Litecoin having four times the transaction capacity of Bitcoin and segwit. Plenty of working alternatives that obsolete the need for yet another altcoin. So, perhaps transaction capacity is used as an excuse to reach a different goal. Let's explore. Apparently after not-so-careful study of the Bitcoin whitepaper, the NYA participants came up with an absurd redefinition of what is "Bitcoin". According to this bizarre definition, they started to claim that Bitcoin is being defined as:
Any blockchain that has the most cumulative hashpower behind it (measured from the Genesis block at the inception of Bitcoin):
Using the SHA256 hashing algorithm;
Having the current difficulty adjustment algorithm (resetting difficulty every 2016 blocks).
Ad 1. Note that it starts with "any blockchain". This also includes blockchains that contain invalid blocks, in other words, blocks that Bitcoin nodes would reject. This is ofcourse bizarre but it is exactly what the NYA participants claim. It effectively puts all power in the hand of miners. Instead of nodes validating blocks, according to this novel and absurd interpretation of Bitcoin it will be miners that call the shots. Whatever block a miner produces will be valid as long as they mine on top of their own block, because that chain will then have the most cumulative hash power. Nodes become mere distributors of blocks and lose all their authority as they can no longer decide over the validity of a block. MinerCoin is born. The Bitcoin whitepaper actually mentions this scenario where a majority of the hashpower takes over the network and starts producing invalid blocks and refers to it as being an attack. It is worth quoting this section 8, second paragraph in its entirety: "As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification." (emphasises mine). Any doubt left whether "most hashpower wins" is an attack should be removed by a telling remark in the release notes of 0.3.19: "Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain." As mentioned, miners representing 95% of all hash power participate in the NYA. They are currently expressing their support for the NYA by putting "NYA" inside blocks. The NYA participants intend to remove their hash power from Bitcoin completely and point it towards their altcoin. To double down on their claim that Bitcoin is defined by hashpower, they show some serious audacity by referring to their altcoin as... "Bitcoin". Anyone not part of the NYA refers to their coin as segwit2x, S2X or sometimes 2x. The NYA participants proceed to proclaim victory. They reason that with all hash power on their blockchain and hardly any left for Bitcoin, "legacy Bitcoin" will be stuck as blocks will be created so slowly that Bitcoin becomes unusable, forcing everyone to switch to the "real" Bitcoin (sic). In other words, it was part of the plan was to remove hash power from Bitcoin to disrupt and force users into their altcoin. Ofcourse, Bitcoin Core would not just sit idle and let such an attack happen. There are several ways to defend against this attack. As a last resort, an emergency difficulty reset combined with a change in the PoW algorithm can be deployed to get Bitcoin going again. This is not likely to be necessary however as miners simply can't afford to mine a coin that has a small fraction of the value of Bitcoin. They have large bills to pay which is impossible by mining a coin that has half or even less the value of Bitcoin. In other words, miners would bankrupt themselves unless their altcoin attains the same value as Bitcoin. Given the lack of user, community and developer support it is save to say that this is not going to happen. Their coin will have only a small fraction of the value of Bitcoin and miners have no choice but to continue mine Bitcoin in order to receive the income necessary to pay for their huge operational expenses. A moment was set for the hardfork: block 494,784 a big block will be produced such that it is invalid for the current Bitcoin network and will discard it. Ofcourse, some nodes must accept the new, bigger S2X blocks. Therefore, Jeff Garzik (co-founder of a company called Bloq) started out to create btc1 which is a fork of the Bitcoin node software and which is adapted such that it accepts blocks up to twice in size, so that the segwit2x altcoin can exist. Note the 1 in btc1 which refers to their version numbering. Bitcoin Core releases are still 0.x but btc1 is numbered 1.x. This is to send the message that they have released the real Bitcoin that is now no longer a beta 0.x release but a production ready 1.x. This nonwithstanding the fact that btc1 is a copy of Bitcoin 0.14 with some minor changes and without any significant development causing it to quickly fall behind Bitcoin. The NYA participants go on to claim that when hash power is on the btc1 blockchain, and Bitcoin is dead as a result because no or hardly any new blocks are being created, then the Bitcoin Core developers have no choice but to start contributing to their btc1 github controlled by Jeff Garzik. In the NYA end state, Bitcoin is a coin of which miners set the consensus rules, and the Core developers sheepishly contribute to software in a repository controlled by Jeff Garzik or whoever pays him. Needless to say, this is never ever going to happen.
The small block hard-liners are now against 2x and want SegWit only.
There is no such thing as small block hardliners. As is probably clear by now, NYA is not about block size. It is about control over Bitcoin. As a matter of fact, Bitcoin Core has never closed the door on a block size increase. In the scaling roadmap published in December 2015, Bitcoin Core notes: "Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the basic software engineering from being the limiting factor." Bitcoin Core literally says here very clearly that further increases of block size are on the table as an option in the future.
For my personal opinion-
I hope that your personal opinion has changed after taking notes of the above.
خالق بیت کوین کیست؟ یکی از اولین دولوپر های آن حدس هایی می زند
Jeff Garzik که از لحاظ تاریخی یکی از مهمترین نویسندگان اولیه ی کد های بیت کوین بود و بعدا سرپرست تیم توسعه دهنده BitPay شد، نمی داند چه کسی پرچم دار رمز ارز هاست. هرچند، حدس هایی دارد. او در مصاحبه با بلومبرگ، با سوء ظن درمورد خالق واقعی بیت کوین سخن گفت. او نظریه ی کمتر شناخته شده ای دارد؛ از نظر وی عمده مدعیانِ عنوان ساتوشی ناکاماتو، Nick Szabo، Adam Back، و یا گروهی از افراد شامل هر دو یا یکی از افراد مذکور، می باشند. علی رغم تاثیر منفی روی اکوسیستم بیت کوین، تلاش برای پیدا کردن ساتوشی ناکاماتو بسیار زیاد است. تعداد محدودی از افراد بر این باور هستند که Craig S. Wright، کسی که ۶ روز است انشعاب سخت Bitcoin SV (“Satoshi Vision”) را رهبری می کند، ساتوشی ناکاماتوی واقعیست. انشعاب پیشرو، Wright، بیت کوینر های اولیه و Roger Ver را به گوشه ای می راند. Ver در حال حاضر می گوید حتی اثبات ساتوشی بودن Wright، انشعاب را منتفی نمی کند. Jeff Garzik: Dave Kleiman احتمالا ساتوشی بوده است Garzik به بلومبرگ گفت که نظر شخصی اش این است که Dave Kleiman، فردی اهل فلوریدا که در سال ۲۰۱۳ از دنیا رفت و در حال حاضر دعاوی حقوقی علیه Craig S. Wright، به عنوان شخصی که ۱۱۰ میلیارد دلار پول را سرقت کرده است، دارد. Wright در زمان طرح دعوای حقوقی با Kleiman به عنوان متخصص امنیت کامپیوتر کار می کرد: « Kleiman و Wright این کوین ها را با استخراج از طریق W&K Info Defense Research LLC به دست آوردند. گرچه ساختار W&K آشفته است، Kleiman ادعا می کند که به تنهایی مالک شرکت است یا آن را با مشارکت Wright نگه داشته است. در هر صورت، آنها ادعا می کنند که Wright حداقل ۵۵۰ هزار BTC یا ۱.۱ میلیون دلار از W&K که متعلق به Kleiman می باشد را به سرقت برده است.» Garzik می گوید، برای او، اتصال نقاط و رنگ آمیزی تصویر Kleiman را به شکل ساتوشی در می آورد. Kleiman یک برنامه نویس خودآموز بوده که پیش تر در Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office کار می کرد. Garzik می گوید: «سبک برنامه نویسی اش با برنامه نویسی بیت کوین منطبق است. برنامه نویس بیت کوین شخصی بسیار بسیار باهوش بود اما یک مهندس نرم افزار آموزش دیده نبود.» Craig Wright سابقا ادعا داشت که Kleiman برای ساخت بیت کوین به او کمک کرده است. وی تا پس از مرگ Kleiman ادعا نکرده بود که ساتوشی ناکاماتو است. شواهد متعددی وجود دارد که ادعای ساتوشی بودن Kleiman را قوت می بخشد، با این حال ممکن است جهان هرگز حقیقت را نفهمد.
Blockstream employee asking to remove Gavin from Foundation.
I received this email: Hello,It's my understanding that the foundation is essentially defunct and bankrupt.. that being said.Is there any chance gavin could be removed as "Chief Scientist"?He is actively abusing his position to push XT.Regardless of your personal view on XT this is bad for bitcoin. I will try to remain neutral on the subject, but at this point I want to ask a probably valid question: Blockstream is paying all the core devs which are opposed to a block size increase. Does blockstream have an economic benefit from not having a block size increase? Blockstream received a $21 million investment. If the blocksize does not increase, can blockstream's sidechains be used to solve it? Current core devs and payroll:
Gregory Maxwell, Blockstream co-founder and chief technology officer, opposed
Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder, opposed
Wladimir J. van der Laan, MIT, neutral?
Gavin Andresen, MIT, supports
Jeff Garzik, Bitpay, supports
Other respected people:
Adam Back, Blockstream co-founder and president, opposed
Lukejr, (has said on irc that he's employed by blockstream?), opposed
Mike Hearn, self employed?, supports
I would like to finish with a quote form the Blockstream website: “As Bitcoin evolves, Blockstream will play a huge role in helping it maintain its momentum, by making it easy to add new capabilities to the platform. And Blockstream’s success will in turn generate new waves of technical and entrepreneurial innovation — it will help make Bitcoin the kind of open, highly adaptive platform upon which a vast array of complementary products and services can be built.” If blockstream makes money doing what Bitcoin is missing, isn't that an incentive to not improve Bitcoin itself? Where is the line drawn? Who decides?
INTRODUCTION Let me explain – if you’re new to Poet, POE can be simply described as follows: A decentralized platform that allows publishers to license, identify, and monetize digital content such as blog posts, news articles, YouTube videos, audio/music, e-books and more. It ensures content creators will receive credit and be financially rewarded for the content they create. Poet is more efficient and global than standard copyrighting due to its speed and decentralized nature What makes POE great? Think about all of the articles, news posts, and videos stolen on the internet today… Social media is notorious for this. Poet seeks to offer a tangible and immediate solution to this problem that, before now, has been extremely difficult to control in our ever-expanding and evermore transparent digital world. To put it simply, it is difficult to legally enforce who owns digital content created online. Poet plans to resolve this. It will ensure creators are credited for their work and rewarded accordingly. Blockchain quite literally provides the solution to this and Poet is the key. Why POE? Mass adoption is very near. Poet is currently testing a WordPress plugin, Frost app, that is scheduled to go live January 21. Due to the widespread use of WordPress, when this goes live, Poet will be available to over 300 million websites at the flick of a switch. The community is growing rapidly and the Poet team has been aggressive in expanding its community team to best position the platform for continued growth and adoption. Realistic, yet aggressive roadmap: The Poet roadmap is one of the few roadmaps I’ve seen that clearly outline the goals and do so in a very realistic timeframe. In addition to this, their product is coming very soon. Undervalued market cap: Inevitably a critical factor for any investor. My personal belief is that project is just getting started. This project aims to target a market of nearly 1 billion+ websites, and that doesn’t even include the number of articles, posts, videos, and audio attached to these sites. Poet is just now beginning to gain a lot of momentum and hasn’t even begun their public marketing campaign. The development team has been extremely transparent and continues to seek out the community to regular input and feedback. This team has performed brilliantly thus far and continues to meet and exceed expectations! COMPETITORS There aren’t any companies directly doing anything quite like Poet. The closest comparable are maybe VeChain (Tracks real-world goods), Tron (Content hosting, Justin Sun compared to a Facebook or Youtube), and Publica (Marketplace for ebooks like Barnes & Noble or Amazon), but their goals are completely different and would not resolve the issues of content licensing and proof of existence like Poet seeks to achieve. Poet aims to resolve a very specific and achievable goal. Poet aims to resolve a widespread global issue that has not been achieved before. Allows for any content creator to utilize its platform for proof of existence. Allows publishers to license, identify, and monetize digital content easily and seamlessly. Will prevent plagiarism and allow for content disputes via community trusted mediators. More efficient than copyrighting Completely decentralized TEAM 8 individuals located primarily in the US and South America, with plans to grow more. Lautaro Dragan: Technical Lead Specializes in ReactJS, NodeJS, and RESTful API’s & Web apps, 10 years exp., full- stack dev, game development enthusiast Patricio Mosse: Full Stack Develop Software engineer, 12 years exp., BS in Computer Science, international experience in USA, France, Israel & Greece Pat Riley: Head of Product Experience at Apple, Bitpay, & BTC Media, 100% self-educated designer, 3 years exp. working on products built on top of Bitcoin, Max Bronstein: Media & Strategy Lead Product geek & digital strategist, experience at Gem, BTC Media, & The Coin Toss Jeremy Kandah: Chief Coin Officer Exp. Working on Flurry the world’s largest mobile analytics company, founded Appcasher, LLC & DApps Fund, exp. establishing multiple ICO’s including Maidsafe Elliot Feeny: Community Relations Media specialist & blockchain enthusiast since 2014, Emory University School of Law, featured in Bitcoin Magazine, The Distributed Ledger and Wolters Kluwer Securities Regulation Daily. Alvaro Crespo: Mobile Developer Software Engineer, university professor teaching discrete math & full-stack web applications, exp. Developing apps for both Android and iOS. Justin Litchfield: Product Development Stanford Ph.D. chemist by education, entrepreneur by profession, 5 years exp. in media, blockchain & FinTech. ADVISORS 19 and counting with ties to over 30 worldwide companies. Vice Media: Mike Fermano BTC Inc: David Bailey, Tyler Evans Samsung, Razorfish, BBS: Richard Titus Viacom, Fox, Vimeo: Greg Clayman Ethereum, JAXX: Anthony Di lorio Fenbushi Capital: Bo Shen Ethereum, Smartwallet: Steven Dakh Augur, Blockchain Ed. Net.: Jeremy Gardner Maven, Yahoo, MySpace: James Heckman BLOQ: Jeff Garzik Let’s Talk Bitcoin, Tokenly: Adam Levine BLOQ, Tally Capital: Matthew Roszak Blockdaemon, Ad Ledger: Konstantin Richter Madhive: Adam Helfgott Proof of Existence, Streamium, Dentraland: Esteban Ordano Block Assets: David Lee BNK To The Future: Simon Dixon ChainB: James Gong DISCLOSURE: I currently hold POE. This is not financial advice. I also stole this post from zerotoamillion so all credit to him
Reminder: JGarzik already proposed a correct and clean solution for the (infrequent and unimportant) so-called "problem" of "stuck transactions", which was way simpler than Peter Todd's massively unpopular and needlessly complicated RBF: Simply allow "stuck transactions" to time-out after 72 hours.
RBF has nothing to do with fixing 'stuck' transactions RBF is being sold as a lie. A true Trojan Horse. We are being told that it was created to solve the stuck transaction problem but that is a lie. [A] patch by Garzik introduces a 72 hour timeout for stuck transactions. This is the correct and clean fix. If you were so boneheaded that you sent a high value transaction without a proper fee then a 72 hour penalty seems perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is using stuck transactions as an excuse to Trojan horse in a fee market system that turns the bitcoin blockchain into an auction house. Here is Jeff Garzik's tweet about pull-request #6722 to make stuck transactions 'time out' after 72 hours. He comments how he has been pushing for this common sense change for years. https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/656920219953135616 I think nearly everyone can agree that having a reasonable 'time out' for a stuck transaction is a very sensible way to solve this problem. No double spends. No replace by fee with different outputs. Just let the damned thing time out, wait a few days, and resubmit it. Why 72 hours? Because that is how long you get sent to the penalty box for being so stupid you sent a high value transaction with little to no fee.
– jratcliff63367 You'll never hear Core / Blockstream admit their real reasons for trying to force RBF on users, but here they are: (1) RBF is necessary for LN
"Reliable opt-in RBF is quite necessary for Lightning" - Anduckk lets the cat out of the bag
Quotes show that RBF is part of Core-Blockstream's strategy to: (1) create fee markets prematurely; (2) kill practical zero-conf for retail ("turn BitPay into a big smoking crater"); (3) force users onto LN; and (4) impose On-By-Default RBF ("check a box that says Send Transaction Irreversibly")
Here is the real reason that core is pushing for RBF so much, and it has nothing to do with 'stuck transactions' and everything to do with the Lightning Network. The LN is a pretty cool system, but it has one critical requirement. For it to work, you must know with 100% certainty that you can get a transaction processed in a timely fashion. It uses a period of time to force a settlement transaction. If they cannot guarantee that a transaction will be processed within a predictable period of time, then their entire system fails. RBF provides a solution to that problem and, without it, they don't see how they can get the LN to work.
RBF and 1 MB max blocksize go hand-in-hand: "RBF is only useful if users engage in bidding wars for scarce block space." - SillyBumWith7Stars ... "If the block size weren't lifted from 1 MB, and many more people wanted to send transactions, then RBF would be an essential feature." - slowmoon
Blockstream CEO Austin Hill lies, saying "We had nothing to do with the development of RBF" & "None of our revenue today or our future revenue plans depend or rely on small blocks." Read inside for three inconvenient truths about RBF and Blockstream's real plans, which they'll never admit to you.
Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".
In this scenario, we have 2 groups colluding to capture the regulatory capabilities of bitcoin. Bitcoin works by having separate groups working in harmony to the economic benefit for themselves and for the network and its owners/participants. The miners, who's duty it is to order transactions and timestamp, do not have very much power over bitcoin as an individual group. They will not mine at a loss for any long period of times and the users of bitcoin via market mechanisms determine the price, and therefore the profitability of miners hashing. But if miners collude with centralized financial hubs, e.g. exchanges, fiat bridges, market makers, etc, then this collusion presents a real regulatory capture attempt upon the bitcoin network. If exchanges refuse to process bitcoin transactions, or if large entities claim that bitcoin is not bitcoin and that the non-incumbent challenger is bitcoin, then this suppresses free will and free market mechanisms from naturally occuring within the marketplace and can have drastic effects upon outcome. I ultimately believe the attempt will fail, but there is no guarantee that there will not be massive damages done to the ecosystem as the result of the takeover, just like when a country rebuffs an invasion from a hostile army, they do not come out of the war without wounds both physical, mental and socioeconomic. I have been around this sub reading since late 2012, and participating since 2013. I have watched Jeff Garzik talk about bitcoin core being the modern version of the church, claiming that we are just trading Monarchs for "cabals of priests". Except now Garzik has been elected the Pope of that church (B2X), and the parliament (DCG/Silbert & Friends + Miners) has been corrupted to support his actions, building a populist movement against science and academia. He is now the single developer of the B2X codebase and is so incompetent that he could not even get a single line code change correct without help from core, let alone rebase 0.15.x codebase to b2x, blaming non-existent bugs to hide his incompetence. And this is the same guy who just announced a 20% premined ICO for a altcoin that has even B2X supporters confused. Oh, and who invested in that premine? Yup, you got it! DCG Group! So wait, the DCG group is funding a hostile takeover of the bitcoin project to install a single developer to control the codebase, colluding with a majority hashrate of miners to attack the network, without replay protection, all while funding a competitor? Now, as we dig a little deeper, we find out that the majority of B2X proponents are funded by DCG, and DCG itself is basically a bankers cabal. Lets also not forget that DCG funded coinbase! So we now have the largest financial $USD bridges that are operating as the platform to bridge bitcoin to $ colluding with centralized mining pools to force invalid rule changes upon the network. Let us also not forget the multimillion deal between bitpay and bitmain and that bitpay used to be pro-core before this takeover. Guys, this is so blatantly the biggest institutional driven threat bitcoin has ever seen. They are engaging in classic regulatory capture behavior attempting to centralize control by colluding with multiple factions that would normally balance each other. This is not very much different from the "Pillars of Democracy" (Federal, Executive, Judicial) balancing each other out for the best interests of the public. But just like democracy, a decentralized system can and will be captured if we allow complacency and apathy to dominate our behaviors. Say what you will about Bitcoin Core and Blockstream, at least they adhere to cypherpunk principals. At least they engage in open and transparent actions and give users the free will by providing opt-in open source code.
The New York Agreement (NYA) was the official start of the SegWit2X project. It was signed by some 50 companies and individuals. Some of those dropped off along the way. Six of them signed the "surrrender" message to the development list. What about the other people and companies in the orginal list? Did they know/support the cancellation? What is their position now? In particular, what about Barry Silbert and the Digital Currency Group, who seemed to be the locomotive of that train? National Enquirer mind wants to know... The NYA signatories as of 2017-05-25:
1Hash (China) Abra (United States) ANX (Hong Kong) Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China) BitClub Network (Hong Kong) Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis) - Roger Ver's site, promised to support BCH on 2017-11-09. Bitex (Argentina) bitFlyer (Japan) Bitfury (United States) Bitmain (China) - Jihan Wu's company, signed "quit" message 2017-11-08. BitPay (United States) - CEO Stephen Pair asked S2X to give up on 2017-??-??. BitPesa (Kenya) BitOasis (United Arab Emirates) Bitso (Mexico) Bitwala (Germany) Bixin.com (China) Blockchain (UK) Bloq (United States) - Jeff Garzik's company, signed "quit" message 2017-11-08. btc.com (China) BTCC (China) BTC.TOP (China) BTER.com (China) Circle (United States) Civic (United States) Coinbase (United States) Coins.ph (Phillipines) CryptoFacilities (UK) Decentral (Canada) Digital Currency Group (United States) F2Pool (China) - withdrew from NYA on 2017-??-??. Filament (United States) Gavin Andresen (United States) Genesis Global Trading (United States) Genesis Mining (Hong Kong) GoCoin (Isle of Man) Grayscale Investments (United States) Guy Corem (Israel) Jaxx (Canada) - withdrew from NYA on 2017-??-??. Korbit (South Korea) Luno (Singapore) MONI (Finland) Netki (United States) OB1 (United States) Purse (United States) Ripio (Argentina) Safello (Sweden) SFOX (United States) ShapeShift (Switzerland) - Eric Vorhees company, signed "quit" message 2017-11-08. surBTC (Chile) - Added BCH trading on 2017-11-13 or so. Unocoin (India) Vaultoro (Germany) Veem (United States) ViaBTC (China) Wayniloans (Argentina) Xapo (United States) - Wences Casares's company, signed "quit" message 2017-11-08. Yours (United States) - Ryan X. Charles, Switched to Bitcoin Cash on 2017-??-??
PSA: Breadwallet users at risk of losing funds after the launch of segwit2x altcoin. REMOVE YOUR FUNDS.
Breadwallet users at risk losing funds after the launch of the segwit2x altcoin Breadwallet may no longer act as Bitcoin wallet after the release of the segwit2x altcoin. Proof This statement by Aaron Voisine (aaronvoisine, CEO of breadwallet): "Breadwallet follows the majority of hashing power on the original PoW algorithm, segwit2x or no, it follows the Nakamoto consensus." This blog post published today confirms: "if a fork were to happen it will automatically follow the longest chain with the most proof of work." What this means In short: after the launch of the segwit2x altcoin, breadwallet turns into a segwit2x wallet. In November this year, an altcoin called segwit2x (aka S2X aka B2X) will be launched. This altcoin is being created by Bloq, a company of which Jeff Garzik is the co-founder and BitPay is a partner. Segwit2x-coin is differs from Bitcoin in that it has double the block size. Currently, 90% of all hash power is pledging that it will quit mining Bitcoin and start mining segwit2x-coin after its launch. This intention is signalled by writing "NYA" (New-York Agreement) into blocks as can be seen here. This means that the majority of the hashpower will be mining segwit2x after its launch and that breadwallet will no longer be a Bitcoin wallet but changes into a segwit2x-coin wallet. Consequences Breadwallet funds will be at risk. After the launch of the segwit2x altcoin, the following serious issues exist while using breadwallet. Scenario 1 Bitcoin permanently keeps the majority of the hash power. In that case, breadwallet continues to functions as a normal BTC wallet. Scenario 2 The segwit2x altcoin permanently receives the majority of the SHA-256 hash power.
Breadwallet ceases to be a bitcoin wallet. It has instantly become a segwit2x altcoin wallet.
The balance shown will be in segwit2x altcoin tokens, not BTC. The balance is unlikely to change in cryptocurrency units, however the fiat value will be different as the exchange rate of segwit2x-coin and bitcoin can be expected to be different.
A payment to a counterparty that expects to receive BTC has two cases: (1) The payment seems to fail because only segwit2x-coin is sent whereas the counterparty expects to receive BTC; or (2) the payment succeeds but both segwit2x-coin and BTC is being sent because the transaction is maliciously broadcast to both types of nodes by the counterparty (this is possbile due to lack of replay protection in segwit2x). Both cases result in loss of funds. In case (1) the segwit2x-coin is sent but the counterparty will never see nor confirm the payment, resulting in the loss of the sent segwit2x-coin. In case (2) both BTC and segwit2x-coin is sent to the counterparty, whereas the user intended to send only segwit2x-coin, resulting in the unintentional sending and loss of the same amount of BTC.
Receiving a payment from a counterparty may lead to a loss. A user expecting to receive BTC but receiving segwit2x-coin instead might not be aware of this because breadwallet considers segwit2x-coin to be equal to BTC. If the user is unaware of the difference, the user is duped into accepting a potentially lower valued segwit2x-coin amount (in fiat terms) instead of BTC.
Scenario 3 The segwit2x altcoin initially receives the majority of the hash power. At some later point in time, the Bitcoin blockchain regains the majority of the hash power.
Breadwallet will switch from being a BTC wallet to being a segwit-coin wallet and back to being a BTC wallet.
Depending on which chain breadwallet is following, it is either showing a segwit2x-coin balance or a BTC balance.
A payment to a counterparty can either cause BTC or segwit2x-coin to be sent, depending on which chain is being followed at the moment the payment is broadcast to the network. The user risks losing funds when the transaction is broadcast to both types of nodes or is maliciously being replayed by the counterparty.
Receiving a payment from a counterparty may lead to a loss. A user cannot be sure which coin it is receiving because it depends on which chain breadwallet considers to be Bitcoin.
Scenario 4 The segwit2x altcoin and Bitcoin alternately receive the majority of the hash power. Consequences are left as an exercise for the reader. Additional notes Breadwallet incorrectly believes that the chain with the most hashpower is Bitcoin. In reality, fully validating nodes define the Bitcoin blockchain. What constitutes "Bitcoin" is well established amongst the great majority of the cryptocurrency community. It is the coin as defined by the Bitcoin whitepaper (by Satoshi Nakamoto) and as implemented by the software published by a group of developers commonly referred to as "Bitcoin Core" and which is published on the bitcoin.org website. Within the cryptocurrency community, there can be no doubt about what Bitcoin is. The claim that segwit2x is "Bitcoin" is therefore a fraudulent claim. Companies trying to sell segwit2x-coin as Bitcoin are likely to be committing fraud in many jurisdictions. Recommended reading Bitcoin Core: "Correcting misinformation on Segwit2x and btc1".
Instead of voicing their concerns with the community and discussing, coming to a consensus on public forums, NYA have decided to talk to each other behind closed doors yet again and make an announcement together. This is the antithesis of decentralization.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-Novembe000685.html The people who signed this are Mike Belshe, Wences Casares, Jihan Wu, Jeff Garzik, Peter Smith and Erik Voorhees. Bitpay released similar annoucement. Instead of voicing their concerns with the community and discussing and coming to a consensus on public forums, they have decided to talk to each other behind closed doors and make an announcement together. This is the antithesis of decentralization. Their decision to make these huge decisions for segwit2x fork behind close doors is further proof that they and their coin was not pro-decentralization in any matter. Their decision to announce together what they had talked about in secret created a massive insider trading opportunity for them, their friends, and their family. I do not know if they took this opportunity, but I assume they did because any rational person would. If you lost money today or yesterday, your money quite literally has been taken from you by these insider traders. They now have that money in their accounts, and insider trading is to blame. If they had chosen to discuss their concerns about segwit2x on public forums, then there would be no insider trading or massive event today. I hope that all of you choose to blacklist these people who insider trade and hate decentralization. Please never support a centralized event, convention, or company that employs them. I was lucky enough to be awake and on ts.whalepool.io when the news broke, and I was not harmed. But I would benefit even more if our community did not have these insider traders making deals behind closed doors and coming out with big announcements that make them very rich on insider trading. I'm sorry if you were hurt by today's events.
Released List of Satoshi Roundtable Attendees Gathering this Weekend
Satoshi Roundtable II This weekend a group of blockchain and bitcoin industry leaders gather again for the Satoshi Roundtable (satoshiroundtable.org) retreat. Participants in the second Satoshi Roundtable include developers, CEOs, investors, adopters and influencers from the blockchain and bitcoin world. The retreat is limited to approximately 75 attendees and designed to encourage organic, participant-driven discussion free of the distractions of a conference. Sessions include several topics of overall blockchain interest and a roundtable discussion on bitcoin capacity. Please provide any suggestions you have for areas of discussion/ focus. Partial list of confirmed participants: Gabriel Abed, CEO, Bitt Charles Allen, CEO, BTCS Gavin Andresen, MIT / Bitcoin Foundation Adam Back, President, Blockstream David Bailey, CEO, yBitcoins Mike Belshe, CEO, BitGo Patrick Byrne, CEO, Overstock / T0 Michael Cao, CEO, zoomhash Dave Carlson, CEO, Mega Big Power Daniel Castagnoli, CCO Exodus Sam Cole, CEO, KNC Miner Matt Corallo, Core Developer Luke Dashjr, Core Developer Anthony Di Iorio, CDO-Toronto Stock Exchange, Founder-Ethereum/Decentral/Kryptokit Joe Disorbo, CEO, Webgistix Jason Dorsett, Early Adopter Evan Duffield, FoundeLead Scientist, Dash Andrew “Flip” Filipowski, Partne Co-Founder, Tally Capital Thomas France, Founder, Ledger Jeff Garzik, Founder, Bloq Yifo Guo, Tech Develope Early Adopter David Johnston, Chairman, Factom Samy Kamkar, Super Hacker Alyse Killeen, Partner, Venture Capital Investor Jason King, Founder, Unsung Mike Komaransky, Cumberland Mining Peter Kroll, Founder, bitaddress.org Bobby Lee, CEO, BTC China, Vice-Chairman of the Board, Bitcoin Foundation Charlie Lee, Director of Engineering, Coinbase/Founder of Litecoin Eric Lombrozo, Founder, Ciphrex Corp / Developer Marshall Long, CTO, Final Hash Matt Luongo, CEO, Fold Jake Mazulewicz, Ph.D. JMA Associates (guest speaker) Human performance researcher Halsey Minor, CEO, Uphold / Founder of CNet Alex Morcos, Hudson Trading/ Core Developer Neha Narula, MIT, Director of DCI – Digital Currency Initiative Dawn Newton, Co-Founder, COO, Netki Justin Newton, Founder CEO, Netki Stephen Pair, Co-FoundeCEO, BitPay Inc. Michael Perklin, President, C4 – CryptoCurrency Certification Consortium / Board Member, Bitcoin Foundation Alex Petrov, CIO, BitFury Phil Potter, CFA, Bitfinex Francis Pouliot, Director, Bitcoin Embassy, Board Member, Bitcoin Foundation JP Richardson, Chief Technical Officer, Exodus Jamie Robinson, QuickBt Jez San, Angel Investor Marco Santori, Partner, Pillsbury Scott Scalf, EVP/Head of Tech Team, Alpha Point Craig Sellars, CTO, Tether Ryan Shea, Co-Founder, One Name Greg Simon, CEO & Co-Founder Ribbit! Me / President, Bitcoin Association Paul Snow, CEO Factom, Texas Bitcoin Conference Riccardo Spagni, Monero Nick Spanos, Founder, Bitcoin Center NYC Elizabeth Stark, Co-Founder & CEO, Lightning Marco Streng, CEO, Genesis Mining Nick Sullivan, CEO, ChangeTip Paul Sztorc, Truthcoin Michael Terpin, CEO, Transform Group Peter Todd, Core Developer Joseph Vaughn Perling, New Liberty Dollar Roger Ver, CEO, Memory Dealers / Bitcoin.com Aaron Voisine, CEO, Breadwallet Zooko Wilcox, CEO, Z Cash Shawn Wilkinson, Founder, Storj Micah Winkelspecht, CEO, Gem Also, representatives from Blockchain, Bain Capital Ventures, Mycelium, Fidelity Investments and others.
Jeff Garzik is a futurist, entrepreneur and software engineer. Jeff is co-founder and CEO of Bloq.Jeff serves on the board of Coin Center, and the advisory board of BitFury, Bitpay, Chain.com, Netki and WayPaver Labs.Jeff has delivered presentations on bitcoin and blockchain at TEDx, State of Digital Money, many bitcoin conferences, as well as private briefings to corporations, governments ... Jeff Garzik Bitcoin Core Developer. 2 posts Product The Road to Bits: Six Decimal Places. We previously announced our plans to migrate to "bits". Today, we're launching support for six decimal places on our invoices – completing step one of that migration. Over the past few months, Jeff Garzik 1 min read. Engineering BitPay, Bitcoin, and Where to Put That Decimal Point. Micro-bitcoins, milli ... View Jeff Garzik’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Jeff has 6 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Jeff’s ... Jeff Garzik ist ein Futurist, Unternehmer und Software-Ingenieur. Jeff ist Mitgründer und CEO von Bloq. Jeff ist Vorstandsmitglied des Coin Center und des Beratungsgremiums von BitFury, Bitpay, Chain.com, Netki und WayPaver Labs.Jeff hat Präsentationen zu Bitcoin und Blockchain bei TEDx, State of Digital Money, vielen Bitcoin-Konferenzen sowie privaten Briefings für Unternehmen, Regierungen ... Jeff Garzik serves on the board of Coin Center, and the advisory board of BitFury, BitPay, Chain.com, Netki and WayPaver Labs. He has delivered presentations on bitcoin and blockchain at TEDx, State of Digital Money and bitcoin conferences, as well as in private briefings to corporations, governments and banks. Garzik is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
We're joined by Jeff Garzik, who was among the very first developers to work with Satoshi in the early days of Bitcoin. Later, he was a core developer at Bitpay and even tried to put a Bitcoin ... After helping to inaugurate CNN.com on the Internet in the early 1990s, Garzik worked at a succession of Internet startups and service providers for over two... 🔴 Robert Kiyosaki Live: Blockchain technology, Future of Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 Robert Kiyosaki 80,229 watching Live now Panel Discussion – Bitcoin in 2025 – A Glimpse Into The ... Jeff Garzik (Bitcoin Core Developer for BitPay and CEO of Dunvegan Space Systems) was the featured speaker, and he gave a presentation called The Future of Bitcoin. I originally believed the ... Coverage from the World's First Bitcoin Conference & World Expo! Jeff Garzik a Linux Kernel and Bitcoin developer speaks about the state of Bitcoin.