Craig Wright identifies Theymos during court hearing ...
The Many Facts Pointing to Adam Back Being ... - Bitcoin News
Bitcoin.org Owner Theymos To Rewrite Satoshi Nakamoto's ...
BW on weibo: r/bitcoin mod, core supporter theymos proposed HF with new POW algorithm to get rid of Chinese miners -- Jihan Wu's response (weibo): those who use btcc's pool or exchange have no idea about the situation
BW on weibo: r/bitcoin mod, core supporter theymos proposed HF with new POW algorithm to get rid of Chinese miners -- Jihan Wu's response (weibo): those who use btcc's pool or exchange have no idea about the situation
I recently recounted the history of the block size controversy for someone and thought I'd repost it here
Bitcoin development was initially led by an anonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto who created the project "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System" The project mostly languished in obscurity until in late 2010 it was revealed that Bitcoin was being used to evade the ban on Wikileaks contributions. (A good summary of Bitcoin's early history can be found here.) Satoshi was opposed to Bitcoin being used for something as controversial as funding Wikileaks, and in one of his last messages, wrote "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us." (link). Satoshi vanished shortly thereafter. When Satoshi disappeared, he left the project effectively in the control of Gavin Andresen, one of the early contributors to the project. Gavin has been characterized as something of a naive academic. It wasn't long before Gavin had been approached by the CIA and agreed to visit and do a presentation. So we know that Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar by 2011. Bitcoin-as-introduced had an Achilles heel. To prevent a specific kind of denial-of-service attack, Satoshi had added a "block size limit" to prevent flooding attacks. Satoshi's plan was to raise the limit as usage increased. Satoshi and the early Bitcoiners such as myself did not envision that the limit might itself be a vulnerability. A near-complete history of the block size limit controversy is here. I'll attempt to summarize my experience with some references. Now it's almost 2020, and by now we've all become much more attuned to the scope of what three-letter-agencies have been doing to manipulate social media platforms. But in 2012 that was tinfoil-hat stuff across most of the internet. In 2012, the Bitcoin subreddit was one of the key places people went for discussion about what was happening in Bitcoin. That, and the bitcointalk forum. The history of what happened has been well documented with sources in places like here and here. The TLDR is
"Theymos" gains control of bitcoin and bitcointalk
Theymos receives a 6000 BTC donation (worth in the low millions of dollars at the time) to develop new forum software. No software is developed.
a company is created, "Blockstream" whose mission depends on keeping Bitcoin's block size limit in place. Blockstream ostensibly plans to sell alternatives to using the Bitcoin blockchain when the blockchain becomes unusable due to congestion. Strangely, those alternatives all look suspiciously like "banking."
(2014) Trolling on social media pivots from "anti-Bitcoin" to "anti-raising-the-block-size-limit". Obstruction to raising the limit suddenly a serious conflict within Bitcoin Core development.
(2015) MIT Media Labs' Digital Currency Initiative hires Gavin Andresen and Wladimir van der Laan. Gavin and Wladimir are the two Core developers who have final authority over the Bitcoin Core software.
(2015) Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn become the leaders of a counter-Blockstream movement called Bitcoin XT. XT was a new Bitcoin client that would cause the block size to be raised if enough people used it.
(2015) Theymos famously begins banning everyone from Bitcoin who supports Bitcoin XT, or who speaks out in favor of raising the block size, or questions the moderation policy, etc. This temporary measure continues to this day.
(2015) Banned OG Bitcoiners try to raise awareness by creating an uncensored subreddit btc to expose the apparent takeover of the Bitcoin project by Blockstream
(2017) a compromise (bait-and-switch) is suddenly proposed from nowhere and suddenly gains widespread support: Segwit2X. This will raise the block size limit by 2X, but only after Segwit is activated. Segwit activates, but support for the 2X block size limit increase quickly evaporates.
Throughout all of this, Blockstream steadfastly argued that it didn't control the Bitcoin Core software. Blockstream pointed to Chaincode Labs who funded several key bitcoin developers and the MIT Media Labs "Digital Currency Initiative" who funded Gavin, Cory, and Wladimir. Gavin and Wladimir in particular had the authority to merge changes into the Bitcoin Core software and as such effectively could decide what did and did not go into the software. As an ostensibly academic organization, Gavin and Wladimir etc could act with intellectual honesty and without coercion. Except Gavin left the Digital Currency Initiative in 2017, saying that while he wasn't pressured to quit, he "didn't want to feel obligated to any person or organization." Fast forward to 2019, and we learn the fascinating news that the MIT Media Labs were funded in part by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, who it turns out just so happened to be a staunch advocate of the Blockstream approach. So really, Bitcoin development was corralled: Blockstream was paying a bunch of devs, and Blockstream-Friendly MIT Media Labs were paying the others. If you're still reading this, you probably wonder what it is about the Blockstream strategy that is so "bad." Aren't they just proposing a different way to solve Bitcoin's problems? The original idea for Bitcoin was a "peer to peer cash system" - - the idea being that if Alice wants to buy something from Bob, she can just give him some tokens - - just like cash. The new vision of bitcoin promoted by Blockstream and Core is "store of value". Under this model, you buy Bitcoins like you might speculate on gold - you buy some and you hold it. Later, if you want to purchase something, you sell your Bitcoins for some other payment method (or use an IOU against a deposit, just like a bank), and use that for purchases. It should be apparent after a moment of thought that the original concept (Alice hands Bob some cash which Bob can then spend how he likes) is vastly more disruptive than the model in which Alice buys Bitcoin on a government-regulated exchange, holds them hoping they'll appreciate in value, and then sells them for Euros or dollars. In model one, the currency is essentially outside the domain of gatekeepers, and could completely disintermediate the entire existing financial system just like Napster for money. In model two, Bitcoin is no more disruptive than shares of a gold fund.
We (BX.in.th) plan to consider Segwit2x as BTC Bitcoin if it goes through as planned with 90%+ mining support. https://bitcoin.co.th/segwit2x-following-the-mining-powe We will follow whichever chain wins the mining battle. We are 100% reserve so even if all our users decided to pull their funds out during the fork we are fine with that and in fact would recommend it.
Edit: The comment was whitelisted an hour after I made this post.
Theymos was handed control of bitcointalk from Satoshi to look after the forum as a trustee. He is, technically, just doing a job, managing bitcointalk for the beneficiaries, being the community. Clearly he is not doing a very good job at it as numerous hacks can attest. Whether it is because of lack of experience, or because he is too busy, Theymos, if you care about the community and the trust that has been given to you, can you please resign?
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
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.
I Flipped and Support Core After Understanding All The Arguments, But It Was NOT EASY (Explained)
I support core after understanding all the arguments. As a newbie developer, I am looking forward to working on some ideas for Lightning. Payment channels are very exciting. I am also a merchant that receives Bitcoin every day at Khemcorp. Exchanges are bad: The NYA agreement in my view shows that Bitcoin isn't anywhere close to as decentralized as we like. Clearly, the first generation Bitcoin companies have themselves become a monopoly and choke point on Bitcoin. More technologically advanced solutions are required instead of exchanges. Local bitcoins offers a clumsy picture of how we could circumvent big businesses from choking Bitcoin. I still don't think Jeff Garzik meant any harm (but his supporters certainly did). Core could have done a better job with this politically, it didn't need to go down this way IMO. Here is why:
Nobody made it easy to understand the arguments of core. All I really needed was just 1 long blog post by Blockstream explaining why 1mb blocks make sense, how the team has been maintaining this since 2012, overseeing the most successful growth of Bitcoin, how larger blocks shifts power to miners. How it doesn't end with 2mb because it shifts the ownership to a group of companies with vested interests, instead of one company (Blockchain) that has been working on decentralized L2 technologies. Blockstream CAN be transparent about their profit motives, in fact THEY ARE on their website. All this to me, is just ineffective communication.
I really wish to appeal to mods like theymos to loosen up the soft bans. I was forced to btc because I could not voice my alternative views here. It became clear to me after a while this was the reddit with the smart people. I understand the want of core to protect themselves from trolling and shilling, but I think if you let the conversations flow, people will get it.
Whenever I think of supporting core I think of people like Samson Mow calling anyone who supports a fork to be a enemy of Bitcoin. This is incredibly vicious for someone who sits on Blockstream, which indirectly has a lot of influence on core code. Whatever your thoughts - This gave me an incredibly angry feeling. Some guy in a chair, acting like he owns Bitcoin. It certainly didn't give the correct impression.
I hope after this mess that core will finally look at extending a small block increase to alleviate the current situation before lightning and other L2 solutions are ready. However between the likes of Jihan, Craig Wright, The Chinese Government and the banks/corps that support 2x and the argument of decentralization. I choose decentralization every time, no matter the cost of the fees. Nobody is going to scale to visa levels without L2 solutions. We already see this problem with Ethereum, having to change from POW, amongst other things. The ecosystem size is the value of the blockchain, not the amount of transactions being done on it in my opinion. If we go by the argument of transactions, then many other coins would be superior. Bitcoin is valuable because it acts like a cryptoasset that is censorship resistant. We already have a win. China banning Bitcoin is a win. Let's keep winning!
What about these statements against Roger and BCH?
I'm relatively new, still undecided between BTC/BCH. Roger seems very convincing and the things he says sound logical, yet a lot of people hate him. One example is this article. Help me find the truth about Bitcoin. EDIT: Thanks for the fast, on point answers! I certainly have a lot more reading to do.
Real-life evidence of the breadown of Bitcoin's (BTC) security model.
This post presents a simple procedure that permits: 1) the invalidation of a transaction recently sent by a payer to a payee, and; 2) the clawback of the coins associated with the transaction. This proof allows us to infer the following: a) Corecoin/SegWitcoin's trustlessness model is irremediably crippled. In this post, we call Corecoin/Segwitcoin the version of Bitcoin forcibly and probably intentionally degraded by a Blockstream-influenced developer group (for those who know about the politics of Bitcoin repository, you know I am being polite) b) The current crippled version of Bitcoin is unusable/untrustworthy for on-chain exchange-of-value (a critical property of money). c) Any contraption that does not display a critical property of money is not money. Q.E.D.: **Corecoin/Segwitcoin is not money.** Any investment made under the belief that Bitcoin is money is unsound and should be reconsidered. The effect of this discovery on the fiat value of Bitcoin (in USD or Euros) is yet to be quantified. ///////////////////////////// (long-read begins here, skip to DEMONSTRATION below if you are in a rush)
If we wanted to completely explain the reasoning underpinning every assertion of this demonstration, this post should be several thousands of words long. Therefore we will provide ample references throughout, and will leave it to the reader to fill in some blanks and discuss any flaws in the comments section. We are fully aware there are ample opportunities for nit-picking. C'est la vie. btw English is my 3rd spoken language, laugh with me of my flaws. About Zero-Confirmation transactions (0-conf) The original version of Bitcoin allowed for so-called "0-conf transactions". Although far from being perfectly secure, they allowed for the convenient and quick exchange of value between parties, at a reasonably and acceptable low risk, akin to that of currency forgery, in-person fraud and third-party processors charge backs. Here is a pertinent thread where Satoshi discusses this feature:
The 2 main features of 0-confirmation are: 1) A payer can spend his own change right away 2) Miners "generally" enforce "first-seen" policy - Optional, but they have an incentive to do so, and it's been indirectly but clearly demonstrated by some Peter Todd shenanigans with a Chinese miner. Political bonus: Gavin Andresen and Tom Harding had devised a way to increase the security of 0-conf, but it was rejected by the Blockstream-influenced repository maintainers. Suggested reading: On Zero Confirmation Transactions https://chrispacia.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/on-zero-confirmation-transactions/ About Replace by fee transaction (RBF) After the briefly described political fiasco (above), Peter Todd managed to get RBF committed into the Bitcoin code. The thinking goes like this "The miners are rational profit maximizers: let them accept higher fees if people are offering it". That was the end of 0-conf in Corecoin/Segwitcoin. Political bonus: It was at this point that Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn were shunned and for all intent and purposes excluded from providing any meaningful development work for Bitcoin Core. A "standard operating procedure" still to this day: toe the party line, and you are made "incommunicado". Very convenient when Blocstream partisans "demonstrate" the absence of evidence of centralised control of the repository. Typical rebuttal example: https://medium.com/@whalecalls/fud-or-fact-blockstream-inc-is-the-main-force-behind-bitcoin-and-taken-over-160aed93c003 What a bunch of bozos. Remember folks: Absence of evidence =/= Evidence of absence! /////////////////////////////
PRELUDE TO THE DEMO
The preceding section introduced a way to "double spend" a coin before its associated transaction is included in a block by a miner (RBF). Originally this "attack" vector also had a time constraint: since 95%+ of transactions were pickep-up in the very next block, speed was of the essence for the attacker. Not anymore. Why? Nowadays, it is not unusual for the mempool backlog to stay for extended periods of time above 40,000 transactions, with recent peaks way above 200,000 transactions. Assuming 2,500 transactions per block, this represents a backlog of 16 to 80 blocks. Naively assuming an even distribution of fees, the time required to process a transaction with an average fee is therefore 80 to 400 minutes + processing of incoming transactions. So: 80 to 400 minutes is an absolute best-case scenario (only a backlog, no incoming transacions). We could pull our fancy pencil and produce a detailled granulometry, but here it's not the point, the point is: 80 to 400 minutes is a long time, and most likely it will be days. I hope we all agree that a span of 80 minutes to several days is a long time to conduct an attack! Bonus: I will spare you the story about the extension of the mempool's expiring delay, another blatant proof of Core's failure. To witness the memory pool fiasco on the Corecoin/Segwitcoin chain (special thanks to nullc, please google: "Jochen mempool" or "Joehoe's mempool" Remember folks: Time is money. /////////////////////////////
There is no voting in Bitcoin. You can set up a million BIP148 nodes and it won't make any difference. For that matter, any individual person doesn't have much economic force, so I'm not sure that it'd make much difference even if you got 50% or 75% or 90% of /Bitcoin users to personally hard-enforce BIP148. You need significant economic actors: Bitcoin-accepting businesses, exchanges, etc. Maybe it's possible to succeed in a UASF without much business support, but then you need massive end-user support, which requires default-on hard enforcement in common software like Core. You're never going to succeed with grassroots political tactics but ~no time, ~no business support, and ~no default-on support in common software.
So it's pretty clear that the overlord of /bitcoin thinks that the majority of bitcoin users have no power towards it's development and direction. This started as him banning big blockers because he thinks he is smarter than the majority. And recently he's saying that the "majority" he has created in his echo-chamber have no power, but the businesses and exchanges do. Well, the businesses, exchanges and miners have decided, just like he said. Except it's on segwit2x. But what's going on in /bitcoin now? (I don't believe these posts claiming they have the majority of user's support. It's just interesting how their thought process contradicts their leader who BANNED the majority and doesn't believe in the majority.) https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/74mydg/the_smart_money_is_on_btc/
Today, the large majority of the bitcoin user base supports the core roadmap.
-There's also Luke-jr sybil resistant poll which indicate that the majority of users do not want a hard-fork now.
There are tons of posts like this all over /bitcoin. So the "majority" is right? Then why wasn't the real majority right in the first thread I posted before theymos banned everyone? I guess the majority is only right when theymos has manufactured it. So theymos = majority. Always. The /bitcoin "majority"TM and a few troll companies are literally all they have left after shifting the goal posts after every loss. Let's finish this in November.
For a number of years there's been an intense debate around how to scale the bitcoin protocol. Essentially the two sides were to increase the blocksize to allow more transactions to be processed in a block interval (on chain scaling) and to add another layer to the protocol to process transactions for low fees then occasionally push those to the main blockchain for settlement (lightning network or off chain scaling). There was an impasse for a long time but there was a gentleman's agreement made where the blocksize would be doubled as an immediate remedy but segragated witnesses would also be implemented and lightning network in the future. A number of miners still weren't happy with the segregated witness development and consensus couldn't be achieved so on August 1st a contentious fork happened where two separate chains were created (one with the "improvement protocol" and one without). Anyone holding bitcoin at that time would be able to access their balance on both chains and would have equal amounts of bitcoin cash (BCH) and BTC. Because of this many people cashed out their positions in alt coins to get the free money and this caused a massive alt sell off. After the fork alts surged as everyone went shopping again and BCH dumped as people sold their free money to buy more BTC or alts. In July I read a post on 4chan saying how the segwit 2x fork isn't going to go ahead and it's the plan all along that they will reneg on the gentleman's agreement and that will leave the BCH chain as the only chain with an immediate scaling solution as lightning network is still 6 months away minimum. In the mean time the price of one BCH dropped down to around 0.05 btc but there were many people accumulating and some miners mining the BCH at a loss accruing over 100k bitcoins that they haven't moved yet. Once the 2x fork that was scheduled for the 16th of November was cancelled, there was a surge in alt coins but BCH started picking up. BCH was experiencing erratic block times because of the hashpower variance as mineras bounced between chains depending upon profitability so they implemented an Emergency Difficulty Adjustment so that the difficulty would adjust after every block based on the average of the 144 blocks prior whereas the bitcoin difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks which is designed to be every 2 weeks. Before the EDA was implemented and BCH had surged a little it became more profitable to mine so the majority of the hashpower from BTC moved over to mine BCH. This meant the BTC hashpower dropped by something like 80% and therefore the blocktime drew out to near an hour. At the same time people began spamming the network with low value, high fee transactions so that miners would process them first and ignore other low fee txs. This caused a massive congestion where at one point there was over 150k unconfirmed txs, with fees upwards of $50 and users still having to wait many hrs to have their tx confirmed. At the same time the price of BCH began soaring to 0.5BTC/BCH before a ddos on a korean exchange that was leading the charge caused it to dump back down to 0.2 across most exchanges. Since then most of the hashpower has been on BTC to process the unconfirmed txs in the mempool and collect the lucrative fees even though BCH is now more profitable to mine. BTC went on another bull run backed by fraudulent USDT (deserving of another post entirely) and BCH retraced to 0.12. Why have miners been colluding to mine BTC when it's more profitable to mine BCH? I believe that it's to maximize the difficulty for the next adjustment in 2 days at which time they will abandon mining BTC and jump on to BCH causing an instance of chain death spiral. BTC will lose the majority of it's hashpower, block times will increase by 5x, tx fees will skyrocket, BCH whales will dump their BTC for more BCH causing the price to surge (Roger Ver recently moved 45 000 BTC to exchanges), the exhorbitant fees on BTC will be less appealing to mine as the price of BTC slumps and we may well see the two coins achieve parity. There's lots of factors at play here and I'm happy to answer questions but essentially many of the miners view the BCH chain as the chain most in alignment with Satoshi's vision (on chain scaling), bitcoin has had extreme censorship of any discussion for development other than that of bitcoin core devs (one mod theymos mods the sub as well as bitcointalk and bitcoin.org), blockstream (owners of Lightning Network patents have been pushing core to use it as they get fees rather than the miners thus invalidating the game theory behind bitcoin), Chinese miners are the majority of hashpower and are choosing BCH which I see as aligning with a switch to an eastern led chapter in global finance, and rampant damage control shilling from the bitcoin core side of the debate on many crypto communities. Anyone who bought into BTC since august 1, or who sold their BCH for cheap is is serious danger of losing the lot. Anyone who bought BCH has had the opportunity to up to 20x their stack of the "real bitcoin". If this goes down, it will ruin so many people and when people dissect how this happened, the censorship on reddit will be one of the most decisive factors.
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).
PSA: Amaury, Peter, Emin, Zander, all have 1 thing in common, they're all devs w/ big egos, underfunded, and eager to prove their worth "patching" bitcoin cash. Right now we're living the phase devs against bitcoin cash. BU+ trolls brigade rbtc heavily, take everything w/ a pinch of salt & DYOR!
I've noticed that the anti-CSW brigading in this sub has gotten really aggressive. I have been away from Reddit for a couple of month because my old account got shadowbanned and because I haven't had time to be online much. Here is an old post I did about BU trolls 2 months ago that was removed because my account got shadowbanned. BU's troll machinery includes a lot of devs (mediocre as well as good devs like Thomas Zander) and proper shills or UIs (useful idiots) who have been recruited to shill through BU's communities or chats. Communications wise BU is the closest thing to Blockstream from what I have seen in this subreddit. BU's number 1 target is CSW.BU's number 2 target is Bitcoin ABC/Amaury. Remember that everyone is welcome to contribute to Bitcoin Cash, but it is important to be aware of groups that engage in astroturfing to not allow any party to manipulate consensus. In the Amaury-CSW controversy BU trolls have flocked around Amaury. Don't be fooled though, the same trolls only 1-2 weeks ago heavily brigaded any threads critical of Andrew Stone's OP_GROUP proposal (Amaury was the main critic) and tried to depict Amaury as a gatekeeper. Amaury tends to act like a gatekeeper, yet brigading and astroturfing is not the way to deal with it. BU's functional lead troll is Contrarian, I have seen Contrarian attack everyone, even Roger Ver as "a fraud" and felon except of Peter Rizun. Contrarian believes that Peter Rizun should be in charge of bitcoin cash (he stated this in at least one comment). He has attacked me of being a shill because of some old spammy link posts I did a long time ago in my profile. I have already explained that those were old posts when I was working in e-commerce which were done through social exchange sites like addmefast where you do something, accumulate points and in exchange can ask others to do something for you. I invited Contrarian publicly for a youtube debate which he refused to do in order "to protect his identity". Remember that the most corrupt people in Bitcoin are Theymos and Cobra who also never come out in order "to protect their identity". When you hit Contrarian__ in reddit analyser this is what comes up: https://ibb.co/bEuMpT The most used word is Craig, the second most used word is Satoshi. The whole point of this 7 years old account is to attack and discredit CSW. The account is 7 years old so the current owner probably bought it from another user and started using it to discredit CSW. Contrarian's critique of CSW boils down to "he is a liar" and he uses as proof white lies Craig said when he was forced to come out as Satoshi. The bottomline is to remind everyone that the only irreplaceable thing in bitcoin cash is it being p2p cash. Everything else, every single dev is dispensable. Devs are at the service of miners and businesses, not vice versa. The moment devs stop serving businesses they should be kissed good bye. Not with astroturfing. But by abandoning or rejecting their software (even through a hard fork). This way only we won't have another Blockstream in Bitcoin Cash, by having users and those closest to users (businesses & miners) in charge. Bitcoin is above all a free market that consists of users, businesses and miners. Developers maintain the infrastructure, they do not design it. They can propose solutions but they cannot force feed changes or decide what to prioritize. Developers should develop exclusively what miners & businesses ask to be done, not what they think is required "to fix" the system. Recent attempts to fix non existent issues include also Amaury's pre-consensus (to make 0-conf more reliable, I still haven't met a business complaining about 0 conf) and other proposals to address the Selfish mining non issue. Selfish mining never happened in over 10 years, even when bitcoin's hash was much lower than today. Even if it's technically possible, the chances of it happening going forward are practically null. Selfish Mining very much reminds me of lightning, a nonexistent problem with an impossible solution. On the plus side I can say that in almost 9 months of activity in this community I haven't seen any signs that Amaury employs shills or sockpuppets. The only sockpuppet that occasionally defend Amaury are BU/Blockstream sockpuppets in debates agains CSW. Every dev should know that Bitcoin cash is open source, nobody is in charge other than the free market and only the market decides what is accepted and what is rejected. Not CSW. Not Amaury. Not BU. But hash and only hash. Devs who want to impose their views on the market should drop bitcoin cash right now and start working on their own coin.
Theymos, T-h-e-y-m-o-s, who is known as Michael Marquardt, who was a college student at the time, he was also running the Bitcoin.org domain. He set up the forums for Silk Road. Both of them (talking about Martti Malm), together with Ross Ulbricht, set up Silk Road, Hydra and a number of other darker websites. Earlier today, popular Bitcoin exchange Bitstamp announced how they will be implementing BIP 101 in a few days. As you would come to expect, it was only a matter of time until Theymos issued a comment on how Bitstamp will be removed from all Bitcoin references, including Reddit and the Bitcoin Wiki. Also read: Greek Banks Asked To Pay Bitcoin ... Bitcoin Companies Would Be Required to Take a Pledge or Take a “Bitcoin Basics” Course. Theymos made the decision about the pledge on November 8, the same day the Segwit2x working group decided to cancel the hard fork. Theymos argued that several companies had previously declared that miners control bitcoin. Theymos operates r/bitcoin, bitcointalk.org, the bitcoin wiki page, and also he also has some control over bitcoin.org too with an anonymous individual called “Cobra Bitcoin.” Barley Social ... Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics.
This video shows an unusual transaction of 80 bitcoins to Theymos linked closely to the 15,000 bitcoins that were supposedly recovered by Zhou Tong from the actual thief. How to use Shapeshift to exchange bitcoin? - Duration: 9:08. One Month 24,322 views. 9:08. GDAX Tutorial - How to Trade for Free - Stop vs. Limit Orders - Duration: 8:28. Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are docume... Bitcoin.com Exchange Opens This Week, Craig Wright Loses Against Kleiman Estate and a lot more ... Theymos Is Deleting Bitcoin's History - Roger Ver by Bitcoin.com - Official Channel. TBC EXCHANGER PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE FOR COMPUTER USERS.. Free To Download. Download Link 1: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lfLTQWhbOepE1sPSa3SyJhwu0Uj6JDK...