BTC Direct reviews Lees klantreviews over btcdirect.eu

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

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

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

November BTC Fork - The Facts

Update 2: THE NOVEMBER SEGWIT2X HARDFORK HAS NOW BEEN CANCELLED! :D
Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I thought I'd start gathering some facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate time = 16th of November - see Reference 6 for exact time.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The OPINIONs section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
  6. 2X Split Countdown
 
Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
submitted by tenmillionsterling to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

November Fork - The Facts

Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I thought I'd start gathering some facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate date = 16th of November.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The opinion section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
 
Update:
I recommend this article by a friend of mine who has been exploring various outcomes and their likelihood.  
Stay tuned for more content in the coming days.
submitted by tenmillionsterling to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Summary
Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it.
I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater".
SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while.
But then we all learned that:
And we also got much better solutions: such as market-based blocksize with Bitcoin Unlimited - way better than SegWit's arbitrary, random centrally-planned, too-little-too-late 1.7MB "max blocksize".
This is why more and more people are rejecting SegWit - and instead installing Bitcoin Unlimited.
In my case, as I gradually learned about the disastrous consequences which SegWit-as-a-soft-fork-hack would have, my intial single OP in December 2015 expressing outspoken support for SegWit soon turned to an avalanche of outspoken opposition to SegWit.
Details
Core / Blockstream lost my support on SegWit - and it's all their fault.
How did Core / Blockstream turn me from an outspoken SegWit supporter to an outspoken SegWit opponent?
It was simple: They made the totally unnecessary (and dangerous) decision to program SegWit as a messy and dangerous soft-fork which would:
  • create a massive new threat vector by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
  • force yet-another random / arbitrary / centrally planned "max blocksize" on everyone (previously 1 MB, now 1.7MB - still pathetically small and hard-coded!).
Meanwhile, new, independent dev teams which are smaller and much better than the corrupt, fiat-financed Core / Blockstream are offering simpler and safer solutions which are much better than SegWit:
  • For blocksize governance, we now have market-based blocksize based on emergent consensus, provided by Bitcoin Unlimited.
  • For malleability and quadratic hashing time (plus a future-proof, tag-based language similar to JSON or XML supporting much cleaner upgrades long-term), we now have Flexible Transactions (FlexTrans).
This is why We Reject SegWit because "SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history".
My rapid evolution on SegWit - as I discovered its dangers (and as we got much better alternatives, like Bitcoin Unlimited + FlexTrans):
Initially, I was one of the most outspoken supporters of SegWit - raving about it in the following OP which I posted (on Monday, December 7, 2015) immediately after seeing a presentation about it on YouTube by Pieter Wuille at one of the early Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3vt1ov/pieter_wuilles_segregated_witness_and_fraud/
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits).
So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community.
However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
  • trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
  • trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
  • trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year.
So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community.
We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork.
But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork.
The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear:
Bitcoin users are not stupid.
Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork.
And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote.
And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately.
We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack.
If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit).
Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code.
Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago.
But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences.
Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k6tke/the_tragedy_of/
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
  • Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
  • SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
  • But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
  • Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
  • This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=segwit+anyone+can+spend&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5r9cu7/the_real_question_is_how_fast_do_bugs_get_fixed/
Why are more and more people (including me!) rejecting SegWit?
(1) SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible change ever proposed for Bitcoin:
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbug3/the_scaling_argument_was_ridiculous_at_first_and/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5a7husegwitasasoftfork_is_a_hack/
(2) Better solutions than SegWit are now available (Bitcoin Unlimited, FlexTrans):
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/574g5l/viabtc_why_i_support_bu_we_should_give_the/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u1r2d/bitcoins_specification_eg_excess_blocksize_eb/
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zjnk/the_blockstreamsegwitln_fork_will_be_worth_less/
(3) Very few miners actually support SegWit. In fact, over half of SegWit signaling comes from just two fiat-funded miners associated with Core / Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC:
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
(4) Hard forks are simpler and safer than soft forks. Hard forks preserve your "right to vote" - so Core / Blockstream is afraid of hard forks a/k/a "full node refendums" - because they know their code would be rejected:
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5f4zaa/anything_controversial_is_the_perfect_time_for_a/
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41c8n5/as_core_blockstream_collapses_and_classic_gains/
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.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59hcvblockstream_is_just_another_shitty_startup_a/
(5) Core / Blockstream's latest propaganda "talking point" proclaims that "SegWit is a blocksize increase". But we don't want "a" random, arbitrary centrally planned blocksize increase (to a tiny 1.7MB) - we want _market-based blocksizes - now and into the future:_
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fjh6l/the_bitcoin_community_is_talking_why_isnt/
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/593voi/the_majority_of_the_community_sentiment_be_it/
(6) Core / Blockstream want to radically change Bitcoin to centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize, and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" semantics. The market wants to go to the moon - with Bitcoin's original security model, and Bitcoin's original market-based (miner-decided) blocksize.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57brcb/bitcoin_unlimited_is_the_real_bitcoin_in_line/
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdhzh/the_number_of_blocks_being_mined_by_bitcoin/
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v10zw/i_have_just_been_banned_for_from_rbitcoin_fo
Flipping the Script: It is Core who is proposing a change to Bitcoin, and BU/Classic that is maintaining the status quo.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v36jy/flipping_the_script_it_is_core_who_is_proposing_a/
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/
TL;DR:
You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream?
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

09-23 06:33 - 'After IEO, SIEO will lead the new trend in the industry' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/btcc100 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 48-58min

'''

The rise and fall of IEO

IEO(Initial Exchange Offering) is the practice of Offering stock to the users of an Exchange as a platform for raising capital.
In 2018, the emergence of IEO caused a frenzy of popularity, especially the launch of a number of IEO projects in the leading exchanges such as Binance, Huobi and OKE, as well as the high investment returns in a short period of time, which made IEO a hit.

[ IEO ]1
The biggest drawback of Initial Coin Offering is its freedom and lack of supervision. Since its flourishing in 2017, about 70% of ICO projects have failed to go online and investors have lost all their money.ICO is gradually pre-cooled and even abandoned under the lack of trust, which directly leads to the “cold winter” of blockchain industry.
IEO is endorsed by the exchange, and the exchange is responsible for the review of the project, which can exclude most “fraudulent projects”. At the same time, the exchange will also become the main trading market of the project in the secondary market. The emergence of IEO is a good solution to the trust crisis of ICO.

[ IEO project ]2
The above is part of the IEO project data collected by the author.In terms of ROI, the investment value of IEO projects has declined, with about 75% of projects down about 50% and 39% down more than 75% since the IEO project was born.So many projects are broken, what are the problems with IEO?

The pain points of IEO

The first pain point: the currency rules are not transparent, exchange weight is high, not conducive to the development of the industry.
In the whole IEO process, the exchange has the absolute right of speech, the project manager and the user must participate in IEO under the rules of the exchange.
Driven by interests, the rights and interests of the user and the project side cannot be effectively guaranteed. Most of the broken projects are the game between the exchange and the project side, and the user pays the bill in the end.For example, Binance announced that COCOS, a premium project that does not require online currency service fees, plummeted by 70% within two days of its launch.Some media pointed out that the main purpose of COCOS online is to sell currency for cash.
The second pain point: low success rate, high cost of user participation.
Almost all exchanges have set a threshold for participating IEO users, most of whom must hold their platform tokens, and the success rate is extremely low.On August 25, Binance released subscription data for the latest installment of its IEO project, Perlin(PERL).According to the announcement, the PERL success rate for this issue was only 5.46%.
Third pain point: lack of hematopoietic capacity, difficult to sustain the value of the project.
Due to the influence of environmental and technological factors, the conditions for the application of blockchain technology are not mature. Most IEO projects lack self-profitability and rely solely on the pull of users, without project feedback, the value of platform tokens cannot be sustained.

[ BitCentury ]3

A better solution, SIEO, was born

SIEO(Sustainable Initial Exchange Offerings) is a Sustainable extreme deflation model pioneered by Bit Century Exchange(BTCC).A certain amount of discount platform tokens are released to apply for purchase quota every day. Users can obtain subscription qualification and quota through registration, sharing and holding platform token BTCC, etc. and participate in daily subscription at a very low discount price to obtain income.

[ SIEO ]4
What are SIEO’s advantages?
First, the mechanism is fair and transparent:
All data rights of SIEO are open and transparent, and users can participate equally.
Second, 5–30 discount subscription, earnings controllable
The subscription price is determined by the average price of the previous trading day, the price is transparent, the expected income is reliable, and the user’s investment is more secure;
Third, high frequency
Users can participate in SIEO subscription every day with high frequency, which can avoid the impact of single IEO on the secondary market.
Fourth, the deflation mechanism
SIEO has a mechanism of extreme deflation, daily earnings, platform earnings and so on will be used to buy back deflation.
Fifth, platform support
SIEO has the support of the platform, the platform has a variety of profit models, with a strong hematopoietic capacity.
Sixth, drainage advantage
SIEO is more suitable for exchanges to attract new, suitable for a wider range of people, more traffic is the key factor driving the development of the industry.
SIEO is an innovation of modern science and technology finance theory. Relying on the trading platform, it can guarantee the continuous appreciation of the platform tokens through the repo deflation mechanism under the fair and transparent rule system.
SIEO is an updated version of IEO that will lead the industry in a new direction.
BitCentury’s official website: [[link]6
'''
After IEO, SIEO will lead the new trend in the industry
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: btcc100
1: i.red****/8p8*cm7q5ao31**ng 2: **re*d.it*o*x7woi*5ao31*png 3: i.redd*i*/r*i***zu5ao*1.png 4: *.redd.it/5rel*sx*5*o3*.p** 5: ww*.btcc100***m/ 6: w**.bt*c1*0.c*m/]^^5
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrency Software Market Boosting The Growth | Leading Key Players Forecast 2019 – 2024

Cryptocurrency Software Market Research:
Acquire Market Research has added a new report titled Cryptocurrency Software Market. This Research Report offers details about the current trends and analysis of Cryptocurrency Software market, as well as scope for the near future. If you are looking for most important details about the Cryptocurrency Software market 2019, then you are at the perfect place, as here we have provided an in-depth detail regarding Cryptocurrency Software market. The research report of the Cryptocurrency Software market is said to be a major improvement in several developing markets which considerably ranging from the Cryptocurrency Software market year 2019 to the year 2024 with a fast pace of progress.
Get Free PDF Sample of this Report at https://www.acquiremarketresearch.com/sample-request/186174/
The Cryptocurrency Software market research report offers the most vital growth factor as well as a limitation which are impacting the growth of the Cryptocurrency Software market described the information related to the past and present status of the Cryptocurrency Software industry across the globe. The Cryptocurrency Software market experts creating the report give a particular assessment of the majority of the fragments incorporated into the Cryptocurrency Software report. The report also analysis the latest trends, highlighting their latest developments, Cryptocurrency Software market shares, business review, and product contributions in the market.
The preparation of the market report requires a brief study to learn and understand the Cryptocurrency Software market growth and moreover several analytical methods like Cryptocurrency Software market SWOT observation in order to sustain the appropriate data to examine the forthcoming economic up-downs regarding the current growth of the Cryptocurrency Software market pattern. This report segments the Worldwide Cryptocurrency Software market on the basis of product type, Cryptocurrency Software Market application, and end-user segments. The report studies each of the segments and Cryptocurrency Software industry forecasts the growth of the segments during the forecast period.
Top manufactures include for Cryptocurrency Software market such as: Binance, Coinbase, Poloniex, LocalBitcoins, BTCC, Bittrex, Kucoin, Bitfinex, Kraken, Cryptopia, Electroneum
Cryptocurrency Software Market Segment by Type: Cloud Based, Web Based
Applications can be classified into: Large Enterprises, SMEs
The report studies the Cryptocurrency Software market on the basis of major product types and end-user segments. The report related to Cryptocurrency Software Market also compiles data from relevant industry bodies to forecast the growth of each of the segments related Cryptocurrency Software Market Scenario. This report centers around Cryptocurrency Software market volume and incentive at the dimension, local dimension, and Cryptocurrency Software manufacturer level. From a point of view, this report delivers about Cryptocurrency Software market estimate by breaking down verifiable information and future prospect.
More Info on this Report:https://www.acquiremarketresearch.com/industry-reports/cryptocurrency-software-market/186174/
The report Cryptocurrency Software market lists down some of the key players and analyzes their share in the Cryptocurrency Software market. Insightful information about the key players such as business Cryptocurrency Software Market overview, product offerings, and Cryptocurrency Software industry revenue segmentation has been provided in the report. The Worldwide Cryptocurrency Software Market report forecasts the growth of the key players in the coming years. Recent developments in the Cryptocurrency Software market have been taken into account while projecting the growth of the key players according to Cryptocurrency Software market scenario.
submitted by surajpalange to BizInsightReports [link] [comments]

Mempool Megathread

The mempools are currently about 42MB and consists of 30k pending transactions. Some people are experiencing confirmation delays as a result of congestion and improperly calculated fees. The mempool has grown much larger in the past, so I don't see cause for concern at this point aside from the inconvenience experienced by legitimate users.
statoshi pointed out something that indicates someone may be abusing BTCC's block priority service. Given how quickly the mempool size spiked, it does seem like something funky is going on. The fees being used are more than previous spam attacks, so this is likely to be rather costly for whoever's behind it. There have also been several attempts to exploit the congestion via social media manipulation.
submitted by BashCo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The November BTC Fork and Bitcoin Cash - The Facts

Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I have started gathering facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate date = 16th of November.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The opinion section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
 
submitted by tenmillionsterling to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.

They've finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - now they're begging for some kind of "compromise".
But actually, markets aren't about compromise. Markets are about competition. Markets are about winner-takes-all.
And the Bitcoin whitepaper never mentions anything about "compromise".
It simply says that 51% of the hashpower determines what is Bitcoin.
And as we know - the best coin will win.
Which will probably be Bitcoin Unlimited with its market-based blocksizes - and not SegWit with its 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize based on a dangerous anyone-can-spend spaghetti-code soft-fork.
Let's review how this played out:
And lo and behold, Core/Blockstream's reliance on fiat funding and central planning and censorship has culminated in this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit, with the following worthless "features" that nobody even wants:
No wonder the only two miners who are supporting this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit are Blockstream's two buddies BitFury and BTCC - who are (surprise! surprise!) also funded by the same corrupt fiat-financed central bankers who fund Blockstream itself.
Market-based solutions from independent devs are better than censorship-based non-solutions from devs getting paid by central bankers
So eventually, a couple of market-based, non-fiat-funded dev teams produced Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic.
And (surprise! surprise!) these two market-based, non-fiat-funded dev teams produced much better technology and economics - based on the original principles of Satoshi's Bitcoin:
By listening to real people in the actual market, and by following Satoshi's principles as stated in the whitepaper, Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to (surprise! surprise!) offer what real people in the actual market actually want - which is currently:
FlexTrans is much better than SegWit
Also, these independent, non-fiat-financed devs developed Flexible Transactions, which is way better than SegWit.
Flexible Transactions can easily fix malleability and quadratic hashing - while also introducing a simple, easy-to-use, future-proof tag-based format similar to JSON or HTML permitting future upgrades without the need for a hard fork.
So Flexible Transactions provides the same things as SegWit - without the dangerous mess of SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork hack - which Core/Blockstream tried to force on everyone - because they want to take away our right to vote via a hard fork - because they know that if we actually had a hard fork a/k/a full node referendum, everyone would vote against Core/Blockstream.
The market wants to decide the blocksize
So more and more of the smart, non-Blockstream-aligned miners, starting with ViaBTC and now including many others, have been adopting Bitcoin Unlimited - because they understand that:
  • Market-based blocksizes are the right, consensus-based mechanism to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling to solve the urgent problems of transaction delays and network congestion - now and in the future
  • Every increase in the blocksize roughly corresponds to the same increase squared in terms of price
  • ie 2x bigger blocks will lead to 4x higher price, 3x bigger blocks will correspond with 9x higher price, etc. - which means that bigger blocks will make everyone happy: more profits for miners, and no more high fees or transaction delays for users.
Now Core/Blockstream are starting to bitch and moan and beg about "compromise"
And actually, we couldn't answer "Sorry it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to.
Because markets and economics and cryptocurrencies aren't about compromises.
Markets are about competition - they're about winner-takes-all.
Nakamoto Consensus is about 51% of the hashpower decides what the rules are.
Imagine if Yahoo Email were to suddenly start begging with Google Mail for "compromise". What would that even mean in the first place??
Yahoo wrote crappy email code - based on their crappy corporate culture - so the market abandoned their crappy (and buggy and insecure) email service.
Core/Blockstream is similar in some ways to Yahoo. They wrote crappy code - because they have a crappy "corporate culture" - because they accept millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers at places like AXA - and because they accept censorship on shit-forums like r\bitcoin - which is why they have no clue about the real needs of real people in the real market in the real world.
Censorship and fiat made Core/Blockstream fragile and out-of-touch
Core/Blockstream devs enjoy the "luxury" of being able to put their head in the sand and hide from the reality of the "shreaking" masses of actual people actually trying to use Bitcoin, because:
  • They get millions of dollars in fiat shoveled to them by central bankers,
  • They conduct their "debates" in the fantasy-land of the shit-forum r\bitcoin where all the important comments get deleted and all the intelligent posters got banned long ago - including quotes from Satoshi.
And then (surprise! surprise!) the following happened:
But in a decentralized, permissionless, open-source system like Bitcoin, there is not a single thing that CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc at their shitty little AXA-funded startup Blockstream or u/theymos and u/bashco on their shitty little censored forum r\bitcoin can do to stop Bitcoin Unlimited from taking over the network - because in open-source and in economics and in markets, the best code and the best cryptocurrency wins.
Everyone (except Core/Blockstream) predicted this would happen
So now - predictably - the Core/Blockstream devs and their low-information supporters are all running around saying "Nobody could have predicted this!"
But actually everyone has been shouting at the top of their lungs predicting this for years - including the most important old-time Bitcoin devs supporting on-chain scaling like Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik who were all "censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed" - plus new-time devs like Peter Rizun u/Peter__R who provided major scaling innovations like XThin - by the vicious drooling toxic authoritarian goons involved with Core/Blockstream.
Everyone has been predicting the current delays and congestion and high fees for years, out here in the reality of the marketplace, in the reality of the uncensored forums - away from Core/Blockstream's centralized back-room closed-door fiat-funded censorship-supported PowerPoint presentations in Hong Kong and Silicon Valley, away from years and years of Core/Blockstream's all-talk-no-action scaling stalling conferences.
The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about "compromise" and "censorship" and "central planning".
The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about yet-another centrally planned blocksize (Now with 1.7MB! SegWit is scaling!TM) which some economically ignorant fiat-funded dev team happened to pull out of their ass and bundle into a radical and irresponsible spaghetti-code SegWit soft-fork.
Markets aren't about "compromise". Markets are about competition.
As u/ForkiusMaximus recently pointed out: The market couldn't even give a fuck if it wanted to - because markets and cryptocurrencies are not about the politics of "compromise" - they're about the economics of competition.
Markets are about decentralization, and they're about Nakamoto Consensus, where 51% of the hashpower decides the rules and everyone else either gets on the bandwagon or withers away watching their hashpower and coin price sink into oblivion.
So, anyone who even brings up the topic of "compromise" is simply showing that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work, and how Nakamoto Consensus works.
This actually isn't very surprising. Blockstream CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and all the rest of the so-called "Core devs" and all their low-information hangers-on like the economic idiot Blockstream founder Mark Friedenbach u/maaku7 have never really understood Bitcoin or markets.
And that's fine and normal. Plenty of individuals don't understand markets very well. But such people simply lose their own money - and they generally don't get put in charge of losing $20 billion of other people's money.
Markets don't need managers or central planners.
Markets run very well on their own - and they don't like central planning or censorship.
Now Core/Blockstream has finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase
So now some people at Core/Blockstream and some of their low-information supporters have have started bitching and moaning and whining about "compromise", as they sink into the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - while their plans are all in shambles, and they've failed in their attempts to hijack our network and our currency.
Meanwhile, the Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about a bunch of central planners and censors whining about "compromise".
Bitcoin Unlimited just keeps stealing more and more hashpower away from Core - until the day comes when we decide to fork their ass into the garbage heap of shitty, failed alt-coins.
Fuck Blockstream/Core and the central bankers and censors they rode in on
We told them for years that they were only shooting themselves in the foot with their closed-door back-room fiat-financed wheeling and dealing and their massive censorship.
We told them they were only giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with.
Now that it's actually happening, we couldn't say "it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to - because there is no such thing as "compromise" in markets or cryptocurrencies.
Markets are all about competition
And Bitcoin is all about 51% of the hashpower.
  • Bitcoin Core decided to bet on hard-coded centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize based on a a shitty spaghetti-code soft-fork. That's their choice. They made their bed now let them lie in it.
  • Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited decided to bet on market-based blocksizes. And that's the market's choice. Bitcoin Unlimited listened to the market - and (suprise! surprise!) that's why more and more hashpower is now mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks.
Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
And may the best coin win.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

I asked multiple exchanges if they would allow user to withdraw both minority and majority coin in case of a hard fork. I also asked what they thought was a better scaling solution. Read responses below.

Note : Proof has been added as requested : http://pastebin.com/J0juXRp5
I sent them the message
Hello, I'm glad to say that I'm pleased with your costumer support. I have two questions. In case of a hypothetical hardfork, would the user be allowed to withdraw both the majority and minority bitcoin? Also, who do you favor? Segwit Softfork or Bitcoin Unlimited? Or do believe in other scaling proposal?
Here are the responses OKCoin
Dear loremusipsumus , Thanks! We appreciate your ongoing support. And of course, if a hardfork happens, we will let our customers withdraw any remaining funds in their accounts at their will. With regards to Segwit vs BU, they are all great solutions. OKCoin looks forward to and will embrace any new technologies that makes bitcoin scale. We will follow the spirit of consensus and welcome whatever the majority agrees to. If you need any further help, please feel free to contact us.
BitFinex
Thank you very much for your message and feedback. In case Bitcoin fork happens, we would act as we did at the time of ETH and ETC fork. Users who hold a balance on Bitfinex at the time of the fork will see their coins split into coins on both chains. Users can then withdraw both. This will most likely not be instant, so if a fork is imminent and you wish to have full control, you would need to withdraw beforehand. Bitfinex does not support one side or the other. We follow consensus. We do not wish to influence the decision the community ultimately makes.
Gemini
Hey loremusipsumus, At this point we are still assessing our options regarding a "hypothetical hardfork" and determining what stance bets meets the needs of our customers while still keeping our core roadmap within reach. Unfortunately I can't share opinions on my "favor" as these could be reflected as the preference of the company as a whole = )
Coinbase
Thank you for contacting Coinbase Support. Hardforks are a difficult thing to process. Not just for Coinbase, but for the entire network. When Ether forked into ETH and ETC, we allowed our customers to withdraw the ETC. This may not always be the case, and it was extremely difficult to implement because we do not support ETC. The safest way to go is to withdraw your coins before a fork to your own wallet. You will then have access to both coins after. Then re-deposit how you see fit. As to which scaling proposal we favor, I can’t say for sure, but this article will give you a strong hint: https://cointelegraph.com/news/scaling-in-2017-coinbases-brian-armstrong-lends-support-to-segwit I hope this information helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
BTCC
Hi loremusipsumus Good day and thank you for contacting us. We greatly appreciate your feedback towards our customer service team. Regarding your concerns, should this incident happen, our management will do the necessary and the best possible option for all our valued users. We do not have a specific party or side that we are in favor of and we are on the neutral side. Should you have further concerns, please do not hesitate to let us know anytime. Thank you very much and have a nice day!
Kraken
I cannot comment on anything related to a hypothetical hard fork nor what scaling proposal we favour.
Bitstamp
Please kindly note that in case Bitcoin would split to two sustained chains, we would also split our customer's coins to two balances and our customers would be able to withdraw on both Bitcoin chains. Regarding your question about who we would favour, we have no preference and take a neutral stance on the matter.
Bittrex
There has been no discussion of this. If something actually happens along those lines we will release an announcement, most likely we would support both forks, as it is not up to us to choose.
Coinfloor
Coinfloor hopes that the Bitcoin community does not go through with a hard fork at this time. This would allow all exchanges to avoid the significant operational and technical overhead that would otherwise be unnecessary. However, in the event of a hard fork, our user's Bitcoin balances would be split and we would provide a mechanism for them to withdraw both balances. We would then review the situation at the time and the views of our customers to determine which version of Bitcoin we would support going forward (or whether we would support both). This process would take time and would likely be quite disruptive. Although the decision is ultimately for the community to decide, our own view is that, as SegWit is a soft fork, it would allow Coinfloor and other exchanges to upgrade in a controlled manner at their own pace.
Btcpop Casimir1904
For Btcpop i can say that we'll support BU but would integrate another chain so users could withdrawal on the other chain(s)
Btc-e
Нам нет особой разницы как это будет работать, главное что бы сеть была жива. Google Translate : We do not have much of a difference as it will work, the main thing that the network was alive.
QuadrigaCX
Yes, the same scenario as Ether's first hard fork, you'd be able to withdraw both. Sorry, as an exchange we have to remain agnostic and have no opinion regarding the latter questions.
itBit
Thank you for your inquiry. itBit holds all client positions (bitcoin and fiat) as Custodian and these positions do not become assets or liabilities of the Custodian. We do not comment on scaling proposals.
bitMex
Depending on interest we may launch a binary prediction market on the probability of this hypothetical hardfork occurring (we already have one on the COIN ETF getting approved). In the event of a hardfork we would list futures contracts on both, same as we did for ETH and ETC.
submitted by loremusipsumus to bitcoinscaling [link] [comments]

These Bitcoin companies already announced their position regarding a potential fork. If you didn't yet, please let your users know where you stand.

A joint statement by 20 exchanges

Including: Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCC, Kraken, BTC China, Poloniex, itBit, ShapeShift, bitt and others.
...we have decided to designate the Bitcoin Unlimited fork as BTU (or XBU). The Bitcoin Core implementation will continue to trade as BTC
However, none of the undersigned can list BTU unless we can run both chains independently without incident. Consequently, we insist that the Bitcoin Unlimited community (or any other consensus breaking implementation) build in strong two-way replay protection.
https://www.bitfinex.com/bitcoin_hardfork_statement

Bitgo

We are 100% supportive of the safe, tested SegWit functionality available for activation in core code today and believe it is by far the safest way to gain additional block space in the near term.
Bitcoin Unlimited does not meet the above tests for being a supportable fork today. In fact, it fails all three criteria. Additionally, there are serious problems with “emergent consensus”...
As such, we will not be able to provide support for a hard fork caused by Bitcoin Unlimited in its current form.
https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgos-approach-to-handling-a-hard-fork-71e572506d7d#.y9we2glr2

Bitrated

We cannot responsibly support Bitcoin Unlimited on the Bitrated platform as an altcoin due its lack of hardfork-related safety measures, its inherent re-org instability and its potentially prohibitive operational costs.
Bitrated is technically, financially and logistically unable to safely and reasonably support networks with unbounded block size or with the “emergent consensus” mechanism
In the case of the mainline Bitcoin client adopting an unbounded block size proposal, we will be forced to shut our full-nodes off and cease offering services for the BTC currency.
https://medium.com/@bitrated/bitrateds-position-on-network-splits-and-bitcoin-unlimited-4685c5c3f8e8

Canadian Bitcoin Economic Nodes

We support the activation of Segregated Witness as an immediate solution to Bitcoin scaling and as a fundamental component of a long-term capacity increases roadmap.
Any contentious hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain shall be considered an alternative cryptocurrency (altcoin), regardless of the relative hashing power on the forked chain.
In addition, we believe Emergent Consensus fundamentally alters the nature of Bitcoin by increasing the responsibilities and powers of the Bitcoin miners, disrupting the existing checks and balances system.
https://hackernoon.com/canadian-bitcoin-economic-nodes-unite-against-bitcoin-unlimited-412786fb4bb6

Colu

...we support SegWit, both as an immediate yet cautious increase in block size, and as a first step for solutions like Lightning, which we are already building on.
We clearly recommend that issuers choose Bitcoin Core, as we believe it’s the safest option. For this reason, all hosted infrastructure supplied by us will continue to use Bitcoin Core. We also won’t be able to provide support for other forks.
https://medium.com/colu/on-coins-of-color-and-forks-of-force-1363f3977170#.rsf3njy60

Electrum

I, Thomas Voegtlin, support Segregated Witness as a scaling solution for Bitcoin, and I am opposed to a hard fork initiated by miners running Bitcoin Unlimited.
http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/hardfork.html

Bitsquare

As many of you might have noticed on Twitter, Bitsquare is in clear opposition to BU and I personally consider it not only as a reckless and irresponsible behavior [...] but as a political attack on Bitcoin.
In the rather unlikely event that they really start a hard fork and the even more unlikely event that they would succeed to take over the Bitcoin network and destroy the current version I would either move the main currency to what will be the follower project of the current Bitcoin Core development branch or move to another Altcoin like Monero.
This personal position might explain why I react rather emotional and radical in regards to BU. I experience it not only as a threat for Bitcoin but as a threat to the work I was spending my time the last 3 years.”
https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/how-bitsquare-would-deal-with-a-bu-hard-fork/1780

Poloniex

We will support Bitcoin Core continuously as BTC.
Poloniex agrees that any contentious hard fork must include replay attack protection
https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.03.17-Hard-Fork

Armory

The Armory developers (goatpig, droark, and achow101) support Segregated Witness as is in its current form, and also support Bitcoin Core. The Armory developers also oppose hard forks that may attack the original chain.
https://github.com/achow101/BitcoinArmory/blob/gh-pages/_posts/2017-3-26-armory-and-hard-forks.md

Bitonic / Bl3p

We will not consider contentious hard forks (without industry-wide consensus) as Bitcoin. Instead we will consider it an alternative cryptocurrency which we will not, out of principle, support.
... we are not financially and technically capable of supporting Bitcoin Unlimited based on the "Emergent Consensus" principle, not for ourselves and not for our customers.
BL3P will, in any case, continue to support the blockchain that is based on the Bitcoin Core software. The bitcoins on this chain will be listed as 'BTC'.
https://bitonic.nl/en/news/121/statement-possible-split-in-bitcoin https://bl3p.eu/news/16/Hard+fork+policy+

GreenAddress

GreenAddress does not support contentious hard forks that risk disenfranchising users, irrespective of hashing power. We believe that such an outcome would create an irreparable precedent that would severely undermine social trust in Bitcoin and potentially set it back for years to come.
https://blog.greenaddress.it/2017/03/27/greenaddress-position-on-contentious-forks/

Blockchainlab Milan

Indispensable prerequisites for a hard fork to be not contentious are:
  1. Clear activation and on-chain coordination processes.
  2. Long grace period which reflects a pessimistic and conservative assessment of node upgrade capacity.
  3. Strong 2-way replay protection which does not place excessive burden on the users.
  4. Wipe-out protection, meaning that the hard fork must be permanent.
  5. Must be entirely open-source at all times of the development and implementation process.
  6. Must be peer-reviewed and tested extensively over a sustained period of time.
Currently Bitcoin Unlimited is not in compliance with any of points outlined.
https://medium.com/@BHBnetwork/bhb-statement-on-proposed-hard-fork-7b8f82da05e5

Coins.ph

Coins.ph supports a single version of Bitcoin, which is Bitcoin Core (BTC)
we consider any hard fork which is rolled out without industry-wide consensus, and therefore splits the network, to be an altcoin, not Bitcoin itself. This is irrespective of how much hash power the forked coin may have. Ours is only one voice of many, but this is entirely consistent with the view currently taken by the economic majority of Bitcoin exchanges.
http://blog.coins.ph/post/158960095064/how-coinsph-will-handle-a-bitcoin-fork

BitMEX

In the case of a fork, we support the plan as proposed by Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCC et al. It will not be possible for any exchange, including BitMEX, to support both chains separately. For these reasons, BU will not be listed or used as a deposit/withdrawal currency until replay protection is implemented and BU is not at risk of a blockchain reorganization if the Core chain becomes longer.
https://blog.bitmex.com/a-statement-on-the-possible-bitcoin-unlimited-hard-fork
Edit: adding others that come up in the comments

Coinbase

The only version of Bitcoin supported on the Coinbase platform today is Bitcoin Core, currently represented by the symbol BTC.
We may provide support for Bitcoin Unlimited in the future depending on market conditions and stability of the protocol, but we cannot guarantee whether or when such support may be available. Customers who wish to access both blockchains at the time of the hard fork should withdraw their BTC from Coinbase since we cannot guarantee what will happen during the hard fork or when this access may be available.
If one chain receives an overwhelming majority of support from miners, users, and exchanges, we reserve the right to alter the names of chains or discontinue support for certain chains in the future.
https://blog.coinbase.com/update-for-customers-with-bitcoin-stored-on-coinbase-904dea08ac5f

Shapeshift

If a fork happens (with BU or anything similar in the future), ShapeShift will list it as a new coin (new name, new symbol). This is purely for practical reasons, not a judgement for or against. If the market decides to follow the BU chain, then after enough time, and with enough clarity on the market's decision (ie - not ambiguous), we would refer to that chain as Bitcoin and ShapeShift may reassign the name/ticker.
Hardforking from the main chain doesn't create an altcoin. It creates a decision point, on which every market participate must judge for himself. The outcome of those decisions, unpredictable ahead of time, is a more appropriate declaration of the true Bitcoin than any specific group within. Stated differently, if a majority doesn't get to declare what Bitcoin is, then certainly neither does a minority. It is a choice we're happy leaving to the market, anything else is the exact kind of centralization that Bitcoin was built to resist.
ShapeShift supports SegWit and a HF to larger blocksize, but does not support BU. We are seeing the utility of the Bitcoin network decay with time (while simultaneously becoming more expensive), and SegWit plus a HF to bigger blocks is the most practical and reasonable short and medium term solution.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62dlaw/these_bitcoin_companies_already_announced_theidfluhe4/

Bitrefill

We strongly oppose any attempt of contentious hard forks in Bitcoin. We’re one of the biggest individual bitcoin e-merchants worldwide, processing tens of thousands of Bitcoin tx every month. Fees are a huge issue for us and our users who make many small-value transactions, but [...] hard forking Bitcoin risks destroying everything that makes it unique and working. There are far better solutions for lowering fees. SegWit is currently the best step forward for bitcoin, and we will be using it immediately once it becomes available.
https://twitter.com/bitrefill/status/843604093260222464
submitted by bahatassafus to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

According to the WSJ, regulators have decided on a "comprehensive ban on channels for the buying or selling of the virtual currency in China"

Here is the link to the original WSJ article.
Full Article: (Thanks knight222)
BEIJING—Chinese authorities are moving toward a broad clampdown on bitcoin trading, testing the resilience of the virtual currency as well as the idea its decentralized nature protects it from government interference. Regulators have decided on a comprehensive ban on channels for the buying or selling of the virtual currency in China that goes beyond plans to shut commercial bitcoin exchanges, according to people familiar with the matter.
Officials communicated the message to several industry executives at a closed-door meeting in Beijing on Friday, according to people who were at the meeting. Until last week, many entrepreneurs in China’s bitcoin circles had thought authorities might shut down only commercial trading activity while tolerating peer-to-peer, or over-the-counter, bitcoin platforms, which enable buyers and sellers to find each other and trade directly.
The Chinese plan represents some of the most draconian measures any government has taken to control bitcoin, created by an anonymous programmer nearly a decade ago as an alternative to official currencies, and word of it sent another wave of anxiety through the Chinese bitcoin community. China has digitized its financial sector faster than any other nation. Authorities continue to support the trend, though their public comments also suggest concern bitcoin could weaken official control of the country’s money supply. The crackdown on the bitcoin ecosystem represents Beijing’s possibly biggest effort so far to limit expansion of a system to rival the yuan. In a previous crackdown, in 2009, the central bank banned the use of tokens valued at billions of dollars created in China’s massive online-gaming networks for real-world purchases.
Bit of Uncertainty China’s clampdown on bitcoin has hurt global prices and domestic trading volumes; for now the country remains a major center for bitcoin mining.
[picture] Mining in 2017* Share by country Daily trading Share by currency Bitcoin price $5,000 100 % Others Others China Yen 35.3% 64.7% Euro 4,000 75 3,000 50 Dollar 2,000 25 Yuan 1,000 0 A J S ’17 2016 *As of Aug. 31 Sources: coindesk (price); bitcoinity.org (trading volume, mining)
A quasiregulatory body called the National Internet Finance Association of China (NIFA) warned investors about virtual currency trading in a statement last week and said that bitcoin platforms lack “legal basis” to operate in the country.
A goal of China’s monetary regulation is to ensure that “the source and destination of every piece of money can be tracked,” Li Lihui, a NIFA official told a technology conference in Shanghai on Friday. A lack of clarity from regulators has fueled worries about how far the government will go. One uncertainty, for example, is whether the ban will affect bitcoin deals made over social-messaging apps such as WeChat . People in the industry say a wave of bitcoin users in recent days migrated from WeChat to the encrypted messaging service Telegram.
A broader clampdown will likely include blocking mainland access to websites of foreign bitcoin exchanges such as Coinbase in the U.S. and Bitfinex in Hong Kong, say people familiar with the matter. Last weekend, the largest domestic bitcoin exchanges—BTCC, Huobi and OKCoin—all said they would halt trading services in the coming weeks, sending prices of bitcoin on the global market tumbling. Bitcoin traded at $3,947 apiece on Monday evening in Beijing, roughly 26% off its high of $4,960.72 on Sept. 1. Industry advocates hail bitcoin for allowing users to transact with each other without the involvement of a central authority. In reality, users access the market for virtual currencies via services and businesses that are centralized in real locations and therefore are susceptible to third parties. Any attempt by China to interfere broadly in the bitcoin network would test that notion further.
On the flip side, if bitcoin does prove resilient, China could be shutting itself out of a growing global market. As recently as last year, China accounted for the bulk of global bitcoin trading activity, but its share has dropped dramatically since the government started attempting to cool the market. China now accounts for less than 15% of bitcoin trading volume.
Blocking overseas exchange sites would add them to a long list of websites Beijing considers too sensitive, including Google and Facebook.
Chinese authorities haven’t made public their stance on virtual currency trading. The People’s Bank of China and the Ministry of Internet and Information Technology didn’t respond to requests for comment on bitcoin measures.
A document passed around at Friday’s meeting and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal instructs Beijing-based exchanges to unwind their operations and provide information on bank accounts used for clients’ deposits by Wednesday.
While China’s sway in bitcoin trading volumes has faded, the country remains a major creator of new bitcoin through a process called mining. Chinese bitcoin miners operate a vast collection of computers for the purpose in remote areas like northwestern Xinjiang, where they can access electricity for cheap. Until now, Chinese miners considered themselves immune from Beijing’s evolving stance on bitcoin trading. One entrepreneur said miners are now worried about authorities moving to limit their operations. “Using VPNs as a workaround will be difficult,” he said, referring to virtual private networks that allow users to circumvent China’s so-called Great Firewall.
Chinese miners loom large in the global bitcoin mining network, also serving an important role in the upkeep of the bitcoin ledger. Potential interference in how they connect to and use the internet could disrupt, at least temporarily, both the creation of new bitcoin and the speed at which global bitcoin transactions are confirmed, say people in the industry. The stepped-up tightening by regulators comes as China’s top leaders have been vocal about battling money laundering, in advance of an important leadership transition this fall. Last week, China’s State Council released guidelines aimed at better coordination between regulators to address the transfer of capital for illicit purposes.
—James T. Areddy in Shanghai and Liyan Qi in Beijing contributed to this article.
submitted by ILikeGreenit to btc [link] [comments]

*There is no consensus, there never will be consensus, only Nakamoto consensus*

This post is for Antpool, F2Pool, Bitfury, BTCC, Bitfinex, and other related parties, particularly those involved with bitcoin mining.
Consider for a moment, the promises made to you, the consensus formed at the 'consensus roundtable', the HF in core that you negotiated for and signed on, simply cannot happen given bitcoin core's governance structure. You've proposed something contentious and you've probably been handed promises by people who cannot fulfill them given the predicament bitcoin core finds itself in. They have a lead maintainer, who's role is supposed to be benevolent dictator, but he refuses such a position, and therefore your contentious core hardfork is an impossible thing to accomplish.
"When people require consensus before a miner-vote, they reverse cause-and-efffect. Bitcoin creates consensus"
It's unfortunate, this whole debacle is tiring, and I just want bitcoin to succeed and for it to be over with.
Also please consider by agreeing to the Segregated Witness softfork first what exactly it is that you are doing to bitcoin. By causing the fee market prematurely, incentivising offchain solutions through transaction discounts, and possibly disincentivising yourselves in the process by abdicating tx fees.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-355#post-12607
btcc_samson in particular it behooves you to spend the time to grok the economic effects of technical decisions, for the sake of us all! Your decisions are more important than you might imagine...
https://mobile.twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/696124751115202561
Miners: you should be using the deployment of the SW SF as a negotiating tactic to acquire the code to increase blocksize onchain. Deploy SW when you have it and its been reviewed. Antpool, F2Pool, think about this- you're putting yourselves into a position to where you will no longer be able to implement the code on your own if you needed to. You SW SF first, the HF falls through, bitcoin is a settlement layer, and you get little fees, as all the low fee high volume fees are on a different blockchain now.
Could someone politely page the other consensus roundtable parties just once, if they have a reddit account?
Join us, re-join us(we won't lock you in a room with peter todd and withhold dinner)
and Coinbase, OKCoin, Bitstamp, Blockchain.info (Peter Smith), Xapo, Bitcoin.com, Foldapp, Bread Wallet, Snapcard.io, Cubits, Vaultoro, Coinify, Bitso, Bitnet, BitOasis, Lamassu, BlockCypher, BitQuick.co, itBit, BitAccess, Coinfinity, Chronos Crypto, Magnr
For bitcoin!
(oh and while you're here, know there is a lot of opposition to RBF. Please save some downtime by not upgrading to that :P)
submitted by bitsko to btc [link] [comments]

Leak: Bruce Fenton attempts to revive failed and incompetent Bitcoin Foundation

Source: http://pastebin.com/8a2EdtSV (archive: https://archive.is/JK0wO)
To The Core Development Team (BCC: BF Board, Craig Sellars & Bitcoin Error Log)
TLDR: The Bitcoin Foundation is working hard to be an asset to Core Dev and we have some ideas on that -/ we'd appreciate help and feedback.
The Foundation is here and here to stay - lets have this organization be a resource that helps Core and Bitcoin as much as possible.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: We hope for Core Devs to consider the foundation an asset that belongs to you just as much as us or anyone else. We've fixed much of what needed fixing and would welcome your help to make this the most effective benefit to Bitcoin it can be.
Some ways this could be carried out: - Board Seat / I would recommend that the board consider and I believe they would vote to accept a qualified member of the Core Development team to serve - the foundation belongs to you and you can help us lead it
WHAT IF THE FOUNDATION 'BELONGED' TO YOU PERSONALLY OR CORE - Closing or destroying the foundation isn't on the table we are here to stay -- however EVERYTHING else is on the table. If you were an official steward of this organization what would you do tomorrow?
MORE DETAILS: The foundation, like Bitcoin itself, had its four share of ups and downs early on. While the group did some good things: funding of three developers, the bitnodes project, some solid events and a response to Bitlicense, there were some stumbles as well. In general, the decisions most consider to be mistakes at the foundation were the result of management that is long gone. The current team, the board and I, volunteered our time to make the foundation the best asset it can be.
A COUPLE INTERESTING FACTS: My role as Executive Director had previously been a paid role with a $100,000 salary. Currently I serve in this role as an unpaid volunteer. Likewise all board seats are volunteer positions. No board member or me as Executive Director receives any compensation at all for this work. We also do not have any related business, travel pay or any other such perks. Bobby Lee / BTCC, Brock Pierce and I personally each donated $10,000 to the foundation this quarter
The Bitcoin Foundation is the oldest and largest industry group with, by far, the most broad cross section of key industry leaders as members: Circle, Xapo, BTCC, Bitpay, BitFury and many many others. We also represent individual members ranging from newcomers to long time Bitcoin leaders and early adopters to many Core Devs such as Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd.
Most importantly, we are objective, neutral and global. We have maintained representation of a wide variety of members on all sides of major issues and also are the most major organization working on a global scale.
NICK SZABO GRANT RECOMMENDATION FOR CRUCIAL BITCOIN SECURITY STUDY
We've spoken to cryptographer and digital asset expert Nick Szabo for his help and suggestions on the most effective use of a grant. (Please note, his involvement is confidential until the donation received and he confirms.)
In summary:
There is is a large amount of code development based on handwaving. In Nick's opinion the blocksize debate showed that even some of the developers don’t really know how secure Bitcoin is they are at the very least very reluctant to talk about the topic, which leaves everybody else in the dark (and not knowing whether some of the developers themselves are in that dark having talked with them about these topics Nick is afraid that many of them are). That is the biggest reason there is so much heat and so little light in the blocksize and related debates about performance vs. security.
So instead of primarily funding yet more development he instead recommends using the funds to increase the rigor of the thinking involved. Specifically, Nick recommends providing it to:
(a) a computer scientist (or small group of same) who is/are familiar with probabilistic and anonymous Byzantine consensus generally, and Bitcoin and Ethereum specifically, in order to
(b) write a paper on proofs of security (technically a proof of highly reliability in a Byzantine consensus-like model that includes defense against Sybil attacks) in abstract models based on Bitcoin and Ethereum, and discuss assumptions and limitations when applying those proofs to actual Bitcoin and Ethereum (this is the most important part), and optionally
(c) recommending or designing next-generation blockchain technology based on improving on those assumptions or reducing those limitations
Nick has agreed to recommend computer scientists who would make good referees to peer review such a paper.
He is a widely respected and relatively non-controversial figure in this industry who also has among the deepest understanding of the real issues facing Bitcoin. The board and I believe that this may be an effective possible use of the funds.
We'd also like feedback from core for any development funding or other initiatives you suggest.
OVERALL ACTIVITIES / WHERE THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION IS TODAY
In addition to the Nick Szabo proposal and development grants, the foundation supports many activities which we believe are beneficial to the Bitcoin ecosystem.
A few notable points: · The Bitcoin Foundation remains the largest industry group and one of the only major industry groups with an international focus.
· Membership includes over 1500 and many of the top industry leaders including KnC, BitPay, BitFury, BTCC, ItBit, Circle, Blockchain, Perkins Coie, Chain, Ok, Pillsbury, Lightspeed, Xapo and many others.
· We have international affiliates in a dozen countries and members all over the world.
· All board members, the Executive Director serve as unpaid volunteers.
· Expenses for the foundation have been significantly reduced and fixed costs are very low - currently at less than 10% of peak spending
· Current Board Members:
Elizabeth McCauley (formerly Ploshay), Global Business Development Head, Coinsecure Bobby Lee, CEO, BTCC (Board Vice Chair) Vinny Lingham, Founder, Civic and Gyft Michael Perklin, Head of Security (Ledger Labs), President (C4) Brock Pierce, Managing Director, Blockchain Capital (Board Chair) Francis Pouliot, Director-Bitcoin Embassy
 Other volunteers include: Executive Director, Bruce Fenton (Atlantic Financial) Chairman of the Regulatory Affairs Committee, Marco Santori, Education Committee, Colin Gallagher and many others 
· As discussed above, the main focus areas for The Bitcoin Foundation are in three areas:
  1. Developing Development: increasing the number of developers and the training and knowledge available to them - the flagship of this area is our DevCore event series, next slated for Toronto - past speakers include Greg Maxwell, Charlie Lee, Jeff Garzik, Matt Corallo, Andreas Antonopoulos, Jeremy Allaire and many others. 
  2. Education and adoption: our Education Committee focuses on providing knowledge, white papers, and data to individuals and organizations with a goal of explaining the technology and increasing usage. 
  3. Promoting technical solutions to industry and regulatory challenges: the Bitcoin Foundation does not focus on lobbying and, as an internationally focused organization, we do not actively work on legislation issues. We do however believe that there is benefit in education of international regulators and officials, particularly with a focus on solutions of a technical nature. 
OTHER INITIATIVES OF INTEREST: DevCore Toronto @ The Blockchain Training Conference:
The Bitcoin Foundation has hosted a number of DevCore events, these are not-for-profit workshop intensives designed to encourage development.
Following the successful DevCore Boston, London and San Mateo events, The Bitcoin Foundation is proud to be bringing The Blockchain Training Conference to Toronto in June. This conference - the first of its kind - will host hands-on technical courses from DevCore in addition to hands-on non-technical courses teaching them relevant blockchain skills such as tracking bitcoin sales in QuickBooks (for accountants), how to avoid legal issues when using bitcoin in your company (for lawyers and entrepreneurs), and how buying/selling/trading bitcoin works (for investment advisors).
This unique training conference hits two of our three main focus areas and represents The Bitcoin Foundation’s commitment to preparing the global community for the
Development Communicstions: One exiting new expansion of our "developing development" efforts is in the area of increasing communication and focusing on common areas of development consensus. Leading this effort is Craig Sellars who will join me and the board in working to bring industry leaders together and to foster communications between various development opinions, CEOs and the public.
Speakers Bureau: We have created a Speakers Bureau which includes industry leaders like Andreas Antonopoulos, Nic Cary, Erik Voorhees and many others
Press matching service: We have an additional group of prominent members and friends of the Bitcoin Foundation who we can match to press inquires based on location and topic
If you are still reading this long email, thank you.
More importantly, thank you for the work you do on this mission critical software that makes this amazing tech we all love and care about possible.
We know your work is misunderstood and unappreciated at times and we also understand that we and Bitcoin owe you a great debt.
Please let us do our part and make this organization a resource that you are happy with and which is seen as an asset to core.
I available anytime to discuss.

Bruce

submitted by breakslowclub to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

New Free Bitcoin Mining Sites 2020  0.008 BTC Earn Without Investment  Crypto-Emirate Review BTC Profit bitcoin profit review QUICK BTC MINING BITCOIN - REVIEW - YouTube Btcc-pool  New Bitcoin Cloud Mining  Review The Ultimate Bitcoin (BTC) Review - Best Cryptocurrency to ...

Bitcoin Cash ABC, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on ... BTCC Review. A trading cryptocurrency guide must provide reviews of all of the top crypto exchanges out there, so that you can find the best cryptocurrency exchange site for you. This review of BTCC consists of four parts: general information, fees, deposit methods and security ... Bitcoin. I invested with the minimum which soon increased after meeting with about 3 or 4 other people. I do not understand how this works and for that reason I made Bitcoin aware I wanted to terminate my account,also that someone had tried to committ fraud on my visa debit card shortly after I had invested.i was advised that I would lose half of my money if I terminated the account so soon as ... Aufgrund der Bitcoin-Einbrüche wird BTC mit einer bemerkenswerten Rate gekauft, sodass 10.000 USD unmittelbar bevorstehen, so ein Analyst. Jeder Bitcoin-Dip wird zu einem bemerkenswerten Preis gekauft, sagt der Top-Trader Filb Filb. Das starke Momentum von BTC über einem wichtigen Widerstandsniveau von 9.000 USD positioniert BTC für einen möglichen Anstieg auf 10.000 USD. Continue reading ... BTCC – Is It Good? BTCC is one of the oldest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world and the oldest and largest in China. It used to be one of the largest in the world with a large mining pool and deep liquidity. However they encountered issues with the Chinese government and ended up being closed in late 2017. Bitcoin BTC. Current Price $12,914.66 (+0.38%) Bitcoin is the world's first and leading decentralized digital currency that started the blockchain revolution. In this report, you will find an analysis of the largest digital asset by market capitalization. Our Rating: Market. Problem that it solves. Bitcoin was created to enable anyone in the world to store, send and receive funds without the ...

[index] [1791] [36574] [1021] [45295] [12655] [10500] [45440] [35492] [9465] [38902]

New Free Bitcoin Mining Sites 2020 0.008 BTC Earn Without Investment Crypto-Emirate Review

The ultimate review of Bitcoin (BTC), the grandaddy of all the cryptocurrencies, based on 9 key metrics: Market Size, Supply & Demand Economics, Decentraliza... BTC Profit bitcoin profit review https://afflat3e1.com/lnk.asp?o=19730&c=918273&a=293503&k=540415869CE5905CB7DE7A3A50F0D8E6&l=20667 Bitcoin Profit is an auto... Binance СЕО LIVE: Bitcoin price prediction & Givе Awaу BTC Binance 3,674 watching Live now Hard Forks Killing Bitcoin, $100,000 TRON Bounty And Ethereum Passes Bitcoin - Duration: 28:07. This is a Full Review of Bitcoin Generator in which you can Mine 1 BTC Daily A Free Bitcoin Mining Website 2020. Bitcoin Generator Exposed - BTC Generator SC... BROWSER MINING PATEN DAN PENGHASIL DOLLAR... https://semawur.com/N1rPE https://semawur.com/ncMdx ORANGEPI https://semawur.com/muR5 STAYING HOME? https://sema...

#