Who is Gavin Andresen - Complete Profile - unblock.net
Gavin Andresen - Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation
Gavin Andrensen. Eines des Entwickler von Bitcoin
Gavin Andresen Bitcoin
[AMA] Gavin Andresen on 8BTC: Scaling Bitcoin. April 21st. I will translate some top-voted questions on Reddit to 8BTC, and have included a short guide on how to sign up and post on 8BTC.
Having had many Core reps doing AMAs on Chinese forum 8BTC, some Classic supporters proposed to invite some Classic devs, such as Gavin or Jeff, to also do a AMA with the Chinese . So here we go, Gavin Andresen is invited to 8BTC, and an AMA with volunteer and staff translators on 8BTC is organized. Time: 7PM-8PM Beijing Time (7AM-8AM EST) Date: April 21st 2016 Place: http://8btc.com/thread-31877-1-1.html Some of Gavin's translated blog posts have been posted in the main AMA thread: One-dollar lulz Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts A Guided Tour of the 2MB Fork Minority Branches 8BTC has also made a special thanks to nextblast (https://twitter.com/cnLedger) for his proactive help on connecting with Gavin and his translation works. As said in the title, I will translate some top-voted questions on Reddit to 8BTC and return his answers. However, If you want to ask Gavin on 8BTC yourself, I have include a short guide below on how to sign up and post stuff on 8BTC. PS: How to Sign Up and Post on 8BTC in this AMA 1.Sign Up: Link. (Please do use this link, it includes the admin of 8BTC (aisen, uid=1) as a referer, becuase a referer is required when signing up 8BTC)
Click on the left blue button says "我要注册"
First Blank: User Name (Need to be more than 3 English characters)
Second Blank: Password
Third Blank: Confirm Password
Fourth Blank: Email Address (You will get a thank-you email from 8BTC, but you don't have to click any link to confirm your email before posting)
Click on the big white button which says "注册" and done
Introduction to Cryptocurrency: BCH, Brother of BTC
Written by the CoinEx Institution, this series of jocular and easy to understand articles will show you everything you need to know about major cryptocurrencies, making you fully prepared before jumping into crypto! BCH, which represents Bitcoin Cash, shares some same features as its big brother Bitcoin (BTC). Both are cryptocurrencies based on decentralization, using a peer-to-peer network and consensus initiative, going open source, and with the blockchain as the underlying technology. https://preview.redd.it/pjndkv61frp41.png?width=1392&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b7521699e5bf417c351618ac7a9e357b4b9b44e Now that we have BTC, what is BCH for? To answer this question, we have to trace back to the source of BCH — BTC. Nakamoto created BTC in 2008, and he also limited the block size to 1M at that time. This restriction not only guarantees the participation of weak-performance personal computers, but also prevents the risk of attacks overloading the Bitcoin network; after all, the system was still in its infancy and was very fragile. Under the 1M limit, a block can hold up to about 2000 transactions in 10 minutes, or 7 transactions per second. As users of BTC transactions were growing in numbers with time passing by, the 1M block size has been unable to carry the ever-increasing transaction volume. As a result, the BTC network appeared congested, transaction fees soared, and transaction packaging became time-consuming… Such problems gave rise to the call for capacity expansion in the BTC community. Some developers, represented by the core developer Core, hoped to ease the BTC congestion by Segregated Witness + Lightning Network. The following three years has seen users argue over this issue. After all, it involved too many people and too many things, which can’t be solved in a short while. Then came the time when community conflicts seemed to have reached deadlock, and disputes over the hard fork were getting intense. On August 1, 2017, BTC finally got a hard fork, and its little bro, BCH, was generated! Due to the version switching, the BTC blockchain was forked into two separate blockchains. Before the fork, everyone who owned BTC was entitled to the same amount of BCH. In this way, the upper limit of the block was upgraded to 8M, and later to 32M, which solved such problems as high fees, slow confirmation, and poor practicability in the old version of the BTC system, and fulfilled BTC’s commitment to being the “peer-to-peer electronic cash”. Since then, the Bitcoin community has been divided into two and everyone is happy. It’s fair to say that BTC is the predecessor of BCH, but after the fork, BCH has always been considered as “BTC” in a new direction. Congestion will hardly happen in the BCH community as BCH has larger blocks and can handle more transactions, unlike BTC, which proved ineffective in processing growing transactions due to small blocks. That is also the most obvious difference between the two, making the transaction fee of BCH much lower than that of BTC. The BCH community is theoretically different from the BTC community under the current Core team. To put it simply, there remains little connection between BCH and BTC, and BCH, separated from its predecessor, has become a brand new cryptocurrency. BCH also has its advantages, such as decentralization, anonymity, fixed listing and smart contracts.
The BCH network is jointly maintained by all users. Unless the vast majority of BCH users agree to make a certain change (such as rule modifications or version upgrade), no one or organization can change or stop BCH operation.
Like the Internet, the BCH network is working all year round! For 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, you can transfer money to anyone around the world! Regardless of the amount, all transactions require no one’s authorization or approval.
BCH also does a good job in anonymity. Generally there is no way to find who owns the address.
Of course, BCH also has a fixed upper limit. The BCH protocol guarantees that there will never be more than 21 million BCH. Compared to the government that continuously issues currencies, depreciating everyone’s deposits, BCH has a ration of supply, and an extremely stable inventory.
BCH is also a programmable currency, which can also implement smart contracts on the basis of currency. Programmable economy is an obvious solution to the transparency and credibility issues in economic operation, and can also reduce social operation costs.
Today BCH is maintained by several different development teams, and its market value has ranked second in the world. More and more merchants are accepting BCH payments, and there are multiple exchanges that support BCH pricing, such as CoinEx. CoinEx is also the first one to adopt BCH pricing. Overseas, BCH supporters include former BitcoinCore chief developers Gavin Andresen and Roger Ver (known as Bitcoin Jesus). In China, many of BCH supporters are veterans in this field, including Wu Jihan, Founder and CEO of Bitmain, Yang Haipo, Founder of ViaBTC / CoinEx, and Jiang Zhuoer, Founder of BTC.TOP Mining Pool. At present, the circulating market value of BCH has reached 59.1 billion. By April 2020, BCH will perform the first halving at a block height of 630,000, and the reward will be reduced by 50% to 6.25 BCH after the halving. If you want to enter the cryptocurrency field, come on, learn more and trade on CoinEx!https://www.coinex.com/
An incomplete history of the Bitcoin Cash's origin and the Minimum Viable Fork project
A common meme is that Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and Craig Wright are the ones responsible for the creation of Bitcoin Cash. This is untrue. Those are figureheads who played a role in popularizing or (for Bitmain, allegedly) funding later development, but they played almost no part until Bitcoin Cash development was long since underway. The Bitmain UAHF contingency plan blog post was made on 2017-06-14. This was the first event in Bitcoin Cash's history that reached a wide audience, but it came 15 months after work on what later became Bitcoin Cash began. The public decision to do a minority hard fork happened 2016-07-31, and was spearheaded by singularity87 and ftrader. ftrader did most of the initial development, which he had started back in March 2016. Even back then, the plan to fork before Segwit's activation was clear:
Bitmain was merely joining their effort in 2017, not starting it. Bitcoin Cash evolved out of the Minimum Viable Fork project that ftradeFreetrader started in March 2016, and which was discussed in /btcfork and /btc. Freetrader blogged about it quite a bit. If you read through his posts, you can see his initial prototype was built on Bitcoin Classic. In Oct 2016, a MVF version based on Bitcoin Core was made. Development on MVF stalled during the latter half of 2016 when it seemed like Bitcoin Unlimited's emergent consensus proposal was likely to gain adoption, but heated up again in early 2017 when BU lost support after a few remote crash 0-day exploits were found and used against BU on March 15 and again in April. Freetrader restarted his MVF work on Bitcoin Unlimited in April. The first mention of Bitcoin ABC is from May 7, 2017. The ABC project was started by deadalnix, but with mostly the same goal as ftrader's work using Core as the base instead of BU or Classic. At that time, ABC was just Core 0.14 minus RBF and Segwit; it didn't yet have any blocksize changes. Deadalnix reached out to Freetrader and asked him if he wanted to help, which Freetrader did. Freetrader made the first prototype of Bitcoin ABC with a blocksize limit other than 1 MB on or before May 21, 2017, while still working in parallel on the Bitcoin Unlimited version of the MVF. Ftrader and deadalnix continued to work on Bitcoin ABC for a couple months before Bitmain even mentioned their support for the contingency plan, and their contingency plan was basically the same as what ftrader and singularity87 had proposed back in June 2016 (but with more refinements and details worked out) -- perform a minority hard fork from BTC before Segwit activates to increase the blocksize limit, and do so in a way that ensures as clean a split as possible. Bitcoin ABC was announced to the public on July 1st, 2017, by ftrader and by deadalnix, about 2-3 months after deadalnix and ftrader began working on it, and 2 weeks after Bitmain announced its intent to support the UAHF. On the date that BCH forked, there were four separate compatible full-node clients:
Bitcoin ABC, developed mostly by Amaury Sechet/deadalnix and freetrader;
Bitcoin Unlimited, developed by the BU team (Andrew Stone/thezerg, Peter Tchipper, Andrea Suisani/sickpig, Peter Rizun, freetrader, and a few others, and funded by anonymous donors in 2016 for their Emergent Consensus proposal);
Bitcoin XT, developed initially by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and later by Tom Harding/dgenr8 and dagurval
Of those developers, the only ones who received money while they were working on these clients were possibly deadalnix (alleged but unconfirmed to be paid by Bitmain), and Gavin (MIT Digital Currency Initiative). Everybody else was a volunteer. At the time, BU's funds only paid for conferences, travel expenses, and a $20,000 bug bounty; BU didn't start paying its developers until after the BCH hard fork. A lot of Bitcoin Cash's early support came from Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. ViaBTC's exchange was the first to offer BCH trading pairs, and ViaBTC's pool was the first public pool to support BCH. I've also heard that Haipo Yang was the one who coined the name Bitcoin Cash -- can anyone confirm or deny this? ViaBTC played a significant role in BCH's deployment, far more than Roger Ver or Craig Wright, and had a comparable amount of influence to Bitmain. However, this was not obvious on the outside, because Haipo Yang is the kind of person who quietly builds things that work, instead of just being a prominent talking head like Craig Wright and Roger Ver are. Roger himself actually didn't fully support Bitcoin Cash until after the fork. Initially, he had his hopes up for Segwit2x, as did I. His name was conspicuously missing in an Aug 1, 2017 article about who supports Bitcoin Cash. It was only after Segwit2x failed on Nov 8, 2017 that he started to support BCH. Craig Wright on the other hand did praise the Bitcoin Cash initiative early on, probably largely because he hated Segwit for some reason. But he didn't do anything to help create BCH; he only spoke in favor of it. (I really wish he hadn't. His involvement in BCH fostered a lot of false beliefs among Bitcoin Cash's userbase, like the belief that selfish mining doesn't exist. We were only able to get rid of his crazed followers when BSV forked off. I'm very grateful that happened. But I digress.) Most people didn't take him seriously, but a modest minority bought his narrative hard. He was a pretty minor player at the time, and remained so until 2018. These are the people who created Bitcoin Cash. It's easy to place all the credit/blame on the most vocal figureheads, but the marketing department does not create the product; they just sell it. If you weren't around during the product's development, it's hard to know who actually built the thing and who was just a bandwagon joiner. CSW and Roger just hopped on the bandwagon. Jihan Wu/Bitmain and Haipo Yang/ViaBTC joined the crew of the bandwagon and contributed substantially to its development and survival, but by the time they had joined the bandwagon was already in motion. The real instigators were the community members like ftrader, deadalnix, singularity87, the BU crew, the Electron Cash crew (Calin Culianu, kyuupichan, Jonald Fyookball, etc.) and the many others who contributed in various ways that I haven't documented. For those of you who played a role or know of someone else who did but whom I didn't mention in this post, please make a comment below so we can all hear about it.
Hello again. It's been a while. People have been emailing me about once a week or so for the last year to ask if I'm coming back to Bitcoin now that Bitcoin Cash exists. And a couple of weeks ago I was summoned on a thread called "Ask Mike Hearn Anything", but that was nothing to do with me and I was on holiday in Japan at the time. So I figured I should just answer all the different questions and answers in one place rather than keep doing it individually over email. Firstly, thanks for the kind words on this sub. I don't take part anymore but I still visit occasionally to see what people are talking about, and the people posting nice messages is a pleasant change from three years ago. Secondly, who am I? Some new Bitcoiners might not know. I am Satoshi. Just kidding. I'm not Satoshi. I was a Bitcoin developer for about five years, from 2010-2015. I was also one of the first Bitcoin users, sending my first coins in April 2009 (to SN), about 4 months after the genesis block. I worked on various things:
My main effort was an implementation of a Java library called bitcoinj. This was the engine used in the first p2p mobile wallet ("Bitcoin Wallet for Android"), and the first p2p desktop wallet that was faster to run than Bitcoin [Core] itself (MultiBit). These together were responsible for around 2.5 million user installs at a time when downloading the full block chain was becoming too slow for normal users to tolerate and the only alternative was a "bitbank" or cloud-hosted wallet. It was used in the first trustless gambling site (SatoshiDice), over 100 products and projects, and many academic research papers.
With Gavin Andresen and others I designed some upgrades to the Bitcoin protocol like Bloom filtering and BIP70.
With Matt Corrallo I implemented and demonstrated the first version of (micro)payment channels. I put together a demo of a file server that charged micropayments using a GUI called Payfile (mentioned in New Scientist here). I used to have a video of this but unfortunately it no longer seems to be on YouTube. Payment channels went on to be used in the design of the Lightning Network.
You can see a trend here - I was always interested in developing peer to peer decentralised applications that used Bitcoin. But what I'm best known for is my role in the block size debate/civil war, documented by Nathaniel Popper in the New York Times. I spent most of 2015 writing extensively about why various proposals from the small-block/Blockstream faction weren't going to work (e.g. on replace by fee, lightning network, what would occur if no hard fork happened, soft forks, scaling conferences etc). After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks. They also convinced the miners and wider community to do nothing for years, resulting in the eventual overload of the main network. I left the project at the start of 2016, documenting my reasons and what I expected to happen in my final essay on Bitcoin in which I said I considered it a failed experiment. Along with the article in the New York Times this pierced the censorship, made the wider world aware of what was going on, and thus my last gift to the community was a 20% drop in price (it soon recovered).
The last two years
Left Bitcoin ... but not decentralisation. After all that went down I started a new project called Corda. You can think of Corda as Bitcoin++, but modified for industrial use cases where a decentralised p2p database is more immediately useful than a new coin. Corda incorporates many ideas I had back when I was working on Bitcoin but couldn't implement due to lack of time, resources, because of ideological wars or because they were too technically radical for the community. So even though it's doesn't provide a new cryptocurrency out of the box, it might be interesting for the Bitcoin Cash community to study anyway. By resigning myself to Bitcoin's fate and joining R3 I could go back to the drawing board and design with a lot more freedom, creating something inspired by Bitcoin's protocol but incorporating all the experience we gained writing Bitcoin apps over the years. The most common question I'm asked is whether I'd come back and work on Bitcoin again. The obvious followup question is - come back and work on what? If you want to see some of the ideas I'd have been exploring if things had worked out differently, go read the Corda tech white paper. Here's a few of the things it might be worth asking about:
Corda's data model is a UTXO ledger, like Bitcoin. Outputs in Corda (called "states") can be arbitrary data structures instead of just coin amounts, so you don't need hacks like coloured coins anymore. You can track arbitrary fungible assets, but you can also model things like the state of a loan, deal, purchase order, crate of cargo etc.
Transactions are structured as Merkle trees.
Corda has a compound key format that can represent more flexible conditions than CHECKMULTISIG can.
Smart contracts are stateless predicates like in Bitcoin, but you can loop like in Ethereum. Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum we do not invent our own VM or languages.
Transactions can have files attached to them. Smart contracts in Corda are stored in attachments and referenced by hash, so large programs aren't duplicated inside every transaction.
The P2P network is encrypted.
Back in 2014 I wrote that Bitcoin needed a store and forward network, to make app dev easier, and to improve privacy. Corda doesn't have a store and forward network - Corda is a store and forward network.
It has a "flow framework" that makes structured back-and-forth conversations very easy to program. This makes protocols like payment channelss a lot quicker and easier to implement, and would have made Lighthouse much more straightforward. A big part of my goal with Corda was to simplify the act of building complicated decentralised applications, based on those Bitcoin experiences. Lighthouse took about 8 months of full time work to build, but it's pretty spartan anyway. That's because Bitcoin offers almost nothing to developers who want to build P2P apps that go beyond simple payments. Corda does.
The flow framework lets you do hard things quickly. For example, we took part in a competition called Project Ubin, the goal of which was to develop something vaguely analogous in complexity to the Lightning Network or original Ripple (decentralised net-out of debts). But we had about six weeks and one developer. We successfully did that in the time allowed. Compare that to dev time for the Lightning Network.
Corda scales a lot better than Bitcoin, even though Bitcoin could have scaled to the levels needed for large payment networks with enough work and time. It has something similar to what Ethereum calls "sharding". This is possible partly because Corda doesn't use proof of work.
It has a mechanism for signalling the equivalent of hard forks.
It provides much better privacy. Whilst it supports techniques like address randomisation, it also doesn't use global broadcast and we are working on encrypting the entire ledger using Intel SGX, such that no human has access to the raw unencrypted data and such that it's transparent to application developers (i.e. no need to design custom zero knowledge proofs)
WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻♂️
155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
For new users, Bitcoin didn't used to have so much vitriol. Before Gavin stepped down as lead developer, people actually got along and were excited together.
After Gavin Andresen stepped down, the power vacuum was filled with Greg Maxwell (CTO of Blockstream). Wladimir van der Laan became the "official" lead dev, however, he has not been a leader in any way. Wladimir has essentially let developers who were/are paid by Blockstream manipulate him into believing Segwit was good and on-chain is bad. Or to say that changes require 100% consensus, which gives Blockstream-paid devs a veto. Without the selfless leadership that Gavin had provided, Bitcoin started to have code gatekeepers who made sure that only code that aligned with their own economic beliefs got in. Greg Maxwell is that gatekeeper and he has openly admitted to it. The debates about the right approach stopped happening. This resulted in a state of permissioned-only development and almost no new developers have been welcomed to work on Bitcoin outside of the sphere of who agree with the path of just a handful of people. Development in a decentralized protocol should be permissionless and completely decentralized so that the best ideas win. Instead BitcoinCore became a cesspool of centralization where the blocksize issue was largely ignored for years despite Gavin saying many times in 2015 that it was time to raise the maximum blocksize. Before this all happened, Bitcoin was incredibly exciting. It felt like we had something special that nobody else knew about but everyone in the world would soon be using. The toxicity and serious politics didn't start until Blockstream entered and starting paying/corrupting "independent" BitcoinCore developers. I can't say if it was the cause, but it is correlated with that exact time. You can't expect someone who is being paid by a company to do something against that company. You would expect such a person who did to no longer be paid by that company. Around the same time, the censorship at bitcoin started. Bitcoin's development could no longer be discussed freely and almost anything other than what BitcoinCore wanted was considered an "altcoin" and would get you banned. Not only censorship but at some point propaganda also started. The Dragon's Den was revealed this April but I'm sure had been operating long before that. http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07
They just have a secret channel where they organize their PR and trolling campaigns. Many people have talked about it (more than 5 people) and it's alluded to in various places which are publicly accessible, since it's basically where a lot of decisions around PR happens. I'm extremely upset that they are attacking me for going to the press when they participate in far more underhanded tactics, and all of Core knows full well what they're doing if not actively contributing.
BitcoinCore's software used to be open source - and technically it still is - but only in the sense that you can copy and diverge rather than get any real fixes/changes into BitcoinCore code. After Segwit2X I hope that we have learned a few lessons:
We shouldn't have to trust any one group of developers. Development under a single group makes Bitcoin weak and corruptible.
Permissionless innovation and a spirit where new developers feel welcome is incredibly important for Bitcoin's growth.
Censorship doesn't work. It only pisses people off, and gradually an army of pissed off people will grow. Eventually that army will break down the walls of censorship and shame those censors forever. u/theymos
Bitcoin is more than any one person, company or government. Bitcoin will only be as good as we deserve and that requires talking truth to power, always.
$1.1 Million Bitcoin Lawsuit Alleging Craig Wright Is Satoshi Continues
https://preview.redd.it/mx5bhhtr11821.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=030cf243188346030302bd8e8ea1d5a9a46171ca https://cryptoiq.co/1-1-million-bitcoin-lawsuit-alleging-craig-wright-is-satoshi-continues/ A $1.1 million Bitcoin lawsuit against Craig Wright in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida continues, with the latest ruling handed down on Dec. 27. The plaintiff is the Estate of Dave Kleiman, and it alleges Kleiman and Wright mined 1.1 million Bitcoins together during the early days of Bitcoin, and when Kleiman died, Wright laundered the money into his own accounts and did not give anything to Kleiman’s heirs. The lawsuit further alleges that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, which has been on and off a heated debate in the crypto space. In the latest order, the court dismisses two counts against Wright, while Wright must respond to the other seven counts by Jan. 10. Count three, which was dismissed, is an allegation that Wright misappropriated trade secrets belonging to Kleiman related to smart contracts and blockchain technology. Count four says the theft of trade secrets violates the federal defense of trade secrets act, and this count was also dismissed. Estate Of Dave Kleiman Asks For $11.4 billion Judgement The remaining counts which have not been dismissed are far more serious. Count one demands $11.427 billion or the return of the Bitcoins and forked assets, like Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc. Count two alleges that the theft of the Bitcoins is unjust enrichment. Count five alleges that Wright breached his fiduciary duty to Kleiman. Count six alleges that Wright did not pay for Kleiman’s share of their joint company. Count seven alleges that Wright committed fraud while taking Kleiman’s assets and intellectual property, including the forging of contracts and signatures. Count eight alleges that Wright committed fraud against Dave Kleiman’s children and tried to use them to cover up the fraud. Count nine asks for a permanent injunction against Wright to return all stolen Bitcoin and intellectual property. A jury trial is scheduled for June 10 in which these standing allegations and claims will be decided. Wright tried to have the case dismissed with a motion in April 2018, offering reasons why the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on this case. However, the judge has decided in the most recent order that it does have jurisdiction, and the case will proceed. Evidence In The Case Alleges Craig Wright Is Satoshi The most intriguing part of this case is the evidence presented that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto in the defendant’s amended complaint. Apparently, Wright and Kleiman met in 2003 and communicated about various technological topics for years after that. In 2008, they co-authored a paper on the mechanics of overwriting hard drive data. In March 2008, Wright emailed Kleiman and said “I need your help editing a paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin … [y]ou are always there for me Dave. I want you to be part of it all.” In late 2008, Wright sent another email to Kleiman, saying “I need your help. You edited my paper, and now I need to have you aid me build this idea.” On Jan. 12, 2009, only nine days after Bitcoin launched on Jan. 3, Wright and Kleiman sent each other Bitcoin transactions, making them some of the earliest Bitcoin users. The lawsuit alleges that Kleiman and Wright mined 1.1 million Bitcoins together, and these are all identifiable and stored in Wright’s wallets. Wright indicated that he has this tremendous amount of Bitcoins during a speech in which he said he had more money than the country Rwanda, where he was speaking. In May 2016, Wright claimed to be Satoshi in a series of blog posts. The best evidence that Wright is Satoshi was a blog post from early Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen. In the post, Andresen claims that Wright signed a message with cryptographic keys that only Satoshi could possess. Ultimately Wright never released these sign messages to the public, leaving the claim in doubt, and Wright is now commonly referred to as faketoshi. As this case enters the trial period, it will certainly shed light on the true nature of Craig Wright’s early involvement in Bitcoin, and whether he really is Satoshi Nakamoto.
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE has always been planned to increase as needed. That limitation should be ignored. theymos 17:15, 4 March 2011 (GMT) What Theymos said. Increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE will be done when "lightweight, header-only" client mode is done. Until then, block size has to be kept under control.--Gavin Andresen 00:19, 5 March 2011 (GMT)
When I joined this forum I was completely wrong calling the Bitcoin core development team "Bitcoin bunker". Now that I understand the situation better I know that there's no single bunker. There are numerous one-or-two-person cubbyholes that may occasionally form the aliances to shoot at the occupant of another cubbyhole. The situation conforms better to the distributed paradigm inherent in the design of Bitcoin.
2013 For the first time in Bitcoin's history, arguments begin to erupt regarding the desirability of increasing the block size limit. Many of the proponents in favor of making the block size limit permanent are investors in competing currencies/payment systems and this fact was not lost on observers of the era and can easily be confirmed by viewing the profiles of the participants: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0;all https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0;all https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221111.0;all In May of 2013, Peter Todd funds the production of a propaganda video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I None of the claims in this video are true, but it is effective in creating drama. Tensions rise and development work grinds nearly to a halt due to infighting. BTC market share is 95%. In December, Gregory Maxwell begins to revive the idea of sidechains along with Adam Back, TheBlueMatt, and other individuals who will go on to form Blockstream. They begin promoting sidechains as an alternative to Bitcoin scaling.
2014 April 7: Unwilling to deal with the drama any further, Gavin steps down as lead developer. At the time the BTC market share is 90%. Sidechain discussion is well underway, yet a few people still manage to speak up to point out that sidechains should not be treated as an alternative to scaling Bitcoin. You may notice some familiar posters in these threads: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=566704.0;all https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0;all In October, Blockstream.com publishes their sidechain whitepaper: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=831527.0;all The response is underwhelming. On November 17, Blockstream announces the securing of $21 million in seed funding. BTC market share is 91%. 2015 On June 22, Gavin Andresen proposes BIP101 to increase the block size limit as the conclusion of his work performed since stepping down as lead developer. On August 6, Mike Hearn announces BitcoinXT, a full node implementation that includes BIP101. Many Blockstream employees, including Adam Back, call this effort a "coup", a claim that can not be made without admitting they believe themselves to be the legitimate rulers of Bitcoin. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup In October, Blockstream employee Pieter Wuille proposes "Segregated Witness": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1210235.0 Post-2015 This is the time period most Bitcoin users are familiar with, which really only represents the tail end of a five year long fight to prevent the planned block size limit increase. The BTC market share has been steadily dropping since the anti-scaling propaganda began in late 2012/early 2013. It currently stands at 66%. https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/
Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are terrible and We Do Support Onchain Scaling
Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc. Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling. We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here. Let’s see: Q: How do you comment on BU? A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad. Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU. Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin. BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong. (from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ? Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:) We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins. Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions. Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange. A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential. Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork? I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW. But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes. If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals. Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling. Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore? A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all. For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools. At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed. I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB. For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system. In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years. Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.htmlhttps://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increasehttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.htmlhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core. Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing. Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit? Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff. If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin. Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response. Activity of BU on GitHub http://i.imgur.com/ElZ71vv.jpg Activity of Core GitHub http://i.imgur.com/XbNGUqz.jpg Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992chttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229 Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future? http://i.imgur.com/P1duZTn.png It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever. Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can. Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone. SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB. Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/ Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference? A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC. Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report? A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine. The AMA is conducted in Chinese. Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English. To see the original Chinese AMA text, Please first sign in on news.8btc.com, the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread: http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are Low-Level CopyCats and We Do Support Onchain Scaling
Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc on 2 Dec. Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling. We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here. Let’s see: Q: How do you comment on BU? A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad. Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU. Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin. BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong. (from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ? Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:) We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins. Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions. Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange. A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential. Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork? I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW. But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes. If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals. Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling. Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore? A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all. For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools. At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed. I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB. For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system. In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years. Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.htmlhttps://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increasehttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.htmlhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core. Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing. Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit? Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff. If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin. Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response. Activity of BU on GitHub Imgur Activity of Core Imgur Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992chttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229 Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future? Imgur It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever. Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can. Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone. SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB. Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/ Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference? A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC. Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report? A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine. The AMA is conducted in Chinese. Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English. To see the original Chinese AMA text, Please first sign in on news.8btc.com , the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread: http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
While cryptocurrency market is collapsing, why not give yourself a break, sit down and indulge in some of our top pick crypto films. It has been a dramatic ups and downs for the revolutionary internet money, Bitcoin, since its inception in 2008. Be that as it may, if you are still skeptical about how cryptocurrency works or what is the Bitcoin hype all about, there’s nothing better than a good documentary to address all your questions and fascinate you. With that said, here is a list of the top documentaries and TV shows every cryptocurrency trader and investor needs to watch. You will not just learn about Bitcoin. Watching them will also explain reasons as to why it was started and how the traditional banking system works. So let’s get started… https://preview.redd.it/jsccktzih0121.png?width=1772&format=png&auto=webp&s=1f70afb5591631b6c81a7a98fcbd0e95791499f3
This 60 minutes long documentary was released in 2015 and it features in-depth explanations on how Bitcoin and the blockchain technology will disrupt the traditional financial system. It interviews well-known icons in the cryptosphere such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Nic Cary and Roger Ver. The film tells the story of money and bitcoin by tracing the origins of money back to the age of barter. From here, through the use of various forms of footage and clever editing, the film tells stories of power, control and deceit. It traces the rise of the Medici and others through the history of banking and commerce. This film is perfect for anyone looking to understand bitcoin and what the central and commercial banks have done to our money. Enlightening and shocking. https://preview.redd.it/d1c4978rj0121.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=e45235f58f48d6c741cf8c7f804900e4b6f7d90e
This documentary gives insight into the early days of mining, and the drama that happened with the Mt. Gox and the Cyprus crisis. It presents a great intro into some of the very early adopters’ lives, such as Gavin Andresen, Brian Armstrong and Margaux Avedisian and why the community is blossoming in a time when the rest of the world is sinking deeper into depression and debt. The interview with the CEO of the Mt. Gox was also very interesting. The film explains many complex issues in layman terms to enable any family member to appreciate the invention for what it accomplishes. It invites one to look beyond mainstream misrepresentations that it is only a black market currency. https://preview.redd.it/jfee201ek0121.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=39691dd56ad77fd5ca38f4b07b24a4c5df554dd0
This documentary is not directly related to cryptocurrency at all and it does not even mention cryptocurrency in the entire movie. However, it is a documentary about the life of the infamous face in the cryptosphere, John McAfee. Many people in the cryptosphere see John McAfee as a laughable figure who shills anything for a buck or two and he mostly gets ignored and sniggered at. As crazy as he is on Twitter, this film reveals another side of JM that you may not be aware of. The documentary may be misinformed or edited to suit the narrative of the writer but it’s clear to see JM’s decision making shown in the documentary echoes how he reacts still on Twitter. A short introduction of the film: John McAfee became a multi-millionaire after creating a prominent antivirus software, and later relocated to Belize. In April 2012, national police raided McAfee’s estate based on suspicions of drug manufacture or trafficking. Later that year McAfee’s neighbor Greg Faull was murdered and McAfee went into hiding before crossing the border to Guatemala and being deported back to the United States. The documentary suggests that McAfee was involved in the murder due to a feud between him and Faull over McAfee’s dogs. McAfee was never charged with any crime in Belize. https://preview.redd.it/veovxyw4l0121.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=ecdb9d151ea7b780c2ad8939676eb47ddfcf34cd
Investigating the work behind bitcoin: An history of Schnorr signatures within Bitcoin.
Schnorr signatures are currently on the Bitcoin core roadmap and an implementation was supposed to be released before the end of this year. Being a mathematician I have been inquiring about Schnorr signature, the math behind it and its implications for bitcoin if it is ever implemented. This post is a list of links if anyone also wants source on the subject. TLDR: To sum it up, Schnorr signature were introduced first as a potential optimization (batch verifications) and then as a possible scheme for signature aggregation. None of this has been implemented yet as many theoretical issue remain. To know more on these issues and on what “signature aggregation means” please refer to the links in this post.
And indeed, it has been a long time... Are they top priority for Bitcoin core? I do not know, but they seem to be pretty high up on the priority list. Here is a quick timeline:
Hal Finney talks about speeding up signature verification by implementing “batch signature verification”. This does not refer to Schnorr, but it is the starting point. February 2011.
Mike Hearn elaborates on “batch signature verification”. He mentions a paper by the famous cryptograph D. Bernstein which successfully implemented such batch verification by using the twisted Edwards curve Ed25519 which relies on Schnorr signatures. August 2012.
An anonymous user released a white paper proposing Boneh–Lynn–Shacham in order to implement signature aggregation. September 2013.
Adam Back talks about his preference for Schnorr signatures over ECDSA due to the possible signature aggregation. October 2013.
Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back talk about Schnorr signatures natively supporting multisig. March 2014.
Here is pretty good summary on Schnorr signatures advantages by David Harding. January 2015.
Gregory Maxwell mentions it (quite negatively I might add) during his talk at the SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar in April 2015. Once again the reference is related to multisig and signature aggregation (from minute mark 20 to 40 ish).
Gregory Maxwell referenced the post#3 of this list as a starting point to justify the implementation of Schnorr signatures. His justifications are towards batch verification and signature aggregation. February 2016.
Many seem to think that a blocksize increase is a minor technical change with few if any adverse effects.
If this belief is incorrect, it should be discussed openly and with technical specifics. Core has shown that it is pathologically unwilling to do this. I notice you don't list arguments against this contention.
Many seem to think that a hardfork is simple and easy for everyone (what's easy for you might be much harder for a large business).
Again, specifics, please. Why would raising or removing the block size limit be harder for a large business than, say, SegWit or LN?
Many seem to think that full blocks are the end of the world (even though blocks will fill at any size depending on the cost).
Purposefully operating Bitcoin at an artificially maintained block size limit economically alters the system from how it has proved itself over 6.5 years. In fact, it even changes the original intent of that system. The fact is, there already are countering economic pressures which limit real block sizes that only get relieved as technology advances. A fixed limit does not even allow for the normal progress afforded by such technical advances. Worse, Bitcoin's first-mover advantage is finite, and there is a growing universe of non-block size limited altcoins out there. Bitcoin may have a faction choosing to hamstring it, but I can assure you, others will not choose to do the same.
Many fail to see the benefits of segwit and the potential of payment channels (instant transactions are a great start).
This is a complete red herring. SegWit and payment channels will work just as well (better in the case of LN) with increased block headroom. Raising the block size limit and scaling innovations are essentially orthogonal.
And many have just decided that they hate everyone who contributes to Bitcoin Core.
I do hate tacit support of censorship. I hate indifference to conflict of interest, particularly indifference to the colossal appearance of such that Blockstream casts over Core and by extension Bitcoin. I hate stalling and the refusal of open discussion. I hate that forthright, long-time supporters of Bitcoin such as Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik get abused and ostracized by an insular clique. I hate disingenuous speech and deceitful actions. I hate word-mincing and hairsplitting. I hate the perhaps not-so-tacit support of DDoS'ing and Sybil attacks on alternative clients. I hate, closed, backdoor meetings purportedly on behalf of an open, permissionless system. And I hate the fact that there are those who won't even hold up their agreements made in such meetings. In spite of my personal feelings, I'd be happy for anyone, even those prone to the above actions to contribute to Bitcoin, so long as they have no out-sized control or influence over the community. This is Bitcoin after all. Shouldn't we all strive for decentralization in all things. Let's have some in Bitcoin development.
It really is unfortunate that this has been ongoing for as long as it has.
At last, something to agree on.
The approaching deployment of segwit...
Is it April already?
... and the subsequent potential for payment channel technologies to break onto the scene should be huge cause for excitement; yet instead we're still fighting the "but 2MB hardfork" line.
If we were to do a simple and conservative block size limit increase, quickly and with as little drama as was just demonstrated by the successful Ethereum hard fork, it would go a long ways towards healing this massive rift in the Bitcoin community sparked by theymos' instituting censorship in this subreddit. We could then get the entire community pulling forwards towards scaling innovation and other growth of Bitcoin. EDIT: And I've just been perma-banned from /Bitcoin, again. I asked why. I'll update if I get a response.
Why The US Government Have Likely Already Approved Bitcoin
Hey Reddit, throwaway account. I'm currently doing some research for an article I hope to have published later this month. I have a very, very rough draft at the moment and your feedback would be lovely. The Elephant in the Room Bitcoin is an enigma. It has renowned economists like Paul Krugman entirely perplexed whilst Silicon Valley CEO's are falling over one another to get a piece of the action. The headlines change on a daily basis: “It's A Ponzi Scheme!”, “It's Gold 2.0!” , “It's A Bubble!”, “It's The New Internet!”. As a result of these, often conflicting articles, it's value shoots up and down like a yo-yo, swinging wildly to the slightest bit of news, good or bad. Of course, these swings wouldn't be so exaggerated if there was a simple way to address the elephant in the room...is bitcoin legal? Government officials have been oddly quiet in addressing this question. Aside from some rudimentary FINCEN guidelines and a vague ECB report, there's been no statement one way or another about its legal status. Whilst I can't provide any definitive proof as to what decisions have and are being made behind closed government doors, I do think it's just possible we already have enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the US government has already given Bitcoin the thumbs up. Satoshi's Lament Back in December 2010 Satoshi was involved in a heated discussion amongst Bitcoin developers on BitcoinTalk as to whether they should support Julian Assange by offering Bitcoin as a means to bypass the notorious banking blockade that had rendered Wikileaks' cash reserves impotent. Bitcoin's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, was extremely wary that any association with Julian and Wikileaks would 'bring too much heat' to the project. “No, don't 'bring it on'” he pleaded with his fellow developers. “The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way.” He went on to clarify. “I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.” By 'destroy us', he was likely talking about a government or corporation pulling the trigger on this nascent project. Amongst other things, Satoshi was fearful that if a nefarious entity such as a commercial bank got wind of the project, at that point in time they could have easily compromised the project by purchasing enough computing power to overrun the network (known as a 51% attack). Despite Satoshi's protestations, Wikileaks went along and adopted Bitcoin and, it seemed Satoshi's worst fears were confirmed when, just 4 months later in April 2011, Gavin Andresen (now lead developer at the Bitcoin Foundation) announced that the C.I.A. had contacted him. “I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at the C.I.A headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference...I accepted the invitation to speak because the fact that I was invited means Bitcoin is already on their radar, and I think it might be a good chance to talk about why I think Bitcoin will make the world a better place. I think the goals of this project are to create a better currency...I don't think any of those goals are incompatible with the goals of government.” Satoshi disappeared shortly after. Gavin recently spoke to the New Yorker about the event. "...I think people realized once I got invited to speak at the C.I.A. that there was no kind of hiding. They, whoever “they” are, already knew about this project." [Source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-future-of-Bitcoin.html] The Silk Road Goes Live 2011 also saw the release of the notorious 'Ebay for Drugs' website, Silk Road. It received much press attention, first breaking in June via Gawker where a developer described his experience of buying LSD through the site as "Kind of like being in the future". It was clear that the Silk Road was where Bitcoin would find its first major real-world trading niche and it's not a coincidence that the BTC price, client downloads and trading volume began to skyrocket after its inception. [Source: http://gizmodo.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable] A week after the Gawker article, Senator Chuck Schumer called a press conference where he went on record demanding that the Silk Road be shut down “Something must be done about Silk Road...Literally, it allows buyers and users to sell illegal drugs online, including heroin, cocaine, and meth, and users sell by hiding their identities through a program that makes them virtually untraceable...[it's] the most brazen attempt to peddle drugs online that we have ever seen. It's more brazen than anything else by lightyears." he told the assembled press. As an aside, it is worth noting that the program that “hides user identities” is TOR, developed by the US Naval Research laboratory and endorsed by Senator Hilary Clinton (Schuman's former co-Senator from the state of New York) as “an important tool for freedom of expression around the world”. Indeed, the TOR Project claims that over 80% of its funding in 2012 came directly from the U.S Government [Source: Tor Project Annual Report 2012] The Radar Screen Lights Up Suddenly, thanks to the Silk Road and Wikileaks, Bitcoin was now on the radar of those in public office. The question on everyones lips must have been “How do we kill Bitcoin (and by extension Wikileaks and Silkroad)?” The C.I.A, thanks to Gavin, were now fully aware of the threat Bitcoin posed to the the current monetary system, and the illegal activities it was funding via Silk Road and other places would have done nothing but confound their concerns (or so you would think). They must have also known (just as Satoshi did) that if there was ever an opportunity to kill Bitcoin (either with regulation, criminal proceedings and/or a 51% attack) then it was back then, in 2011, with the network still in its infancy, that they should strike. We should have expected the kind of domain seizures that we saw with the likes of Megaupload; Bitcointalk, Bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation should have been wiped off the map. They could have also moved with the banks to shutdown any accounts seen to be associated with Bitcoin trading (as we saw happen with Online Gambling websites during the Bush Regime). They could have then disrupted what remained of the Bitcoin network by performing a relatively cheap and simple 51% attack. And yet, none of that happened... Bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation have been left to prosper and go from strength to strength. VC's, Wall Street traders and the average Joe were all left free to pump money into this burgeoning experiment without any government intervention whatsoever. Eric, Julian and the Bilderberg Group Back in 2010 Google dipped their toes into the world of virtual currencies, acquiring a little known company called Jambool for $70m. For awhile they ran a platform called Social Gold which was later usurped in 2011 by Facebook Credits (Facebook's attempt at a virtual currency). This was phased out in mid-2012. Techcrunch cites that this was likely due to the problems Facebook had encountered in educating the public about using another form of currency, and goes on to speculate that by offering a centralised means of exchange, Facebook may have also faced increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny. In June 2011, Julian Assange met Eric Schmidt online in a secret 5 hour chat in which they discussed - amongst other things - Bitcoin. The full transcript - which was leaked last month - is available here: http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt Also in attendance at the meeting was Jared Cohen, a former Secretary of State advisor to Hillary Clinton, Scott Malcomson, Director of Speechwriting for Ambassador Susan Rice at the US State Department and current Communications Director of the International Crisis Group, and Lisa Shields, Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Here's an excerpt: JA: ...there’s also a very nice little paper that I’ve seen in relation to Bitcoin, that… you know about Bitcoin? ES: No. JA: Okay, Bitcoin is something that evolved out of the cypherpunks a couple of years ago, and it is an alternative… it is a stateless currency. … JA: And very important, actually. It has a few problems. But its innovations exceed its problems. Now there has been innovations along these lines in many different paths of digital currencies, anonymous, untraceable etc. People have been experimenting with over the past 20 years. The Bitcoin actually has the balance and incentives right, and that is why it is starting to take off. The different combination of these things. No central nodes. It is all point to point. One does not need to trust any central mint…. ... ES: That's very interesting So, now we know Bitcoin was on the radar of the C.I.A, various politicians and, thanks to Julian, the CEO of Google was now beginning to get an inkling as to its disruptive potential. Just 13 days prior to the Assange meet, Eric had attended the annual meeting of the notoriously secretive Bilderberg Group in St. Moritz, Switzerland and went on to attend the meet again in June 2012. Topics of discussion included:
Emerging Economies: Roles and Responsibilities
Economic and National Security in a Digital Age
Technological Innovation in Western Economies: Stagnation or Promise?
Imbalances, Austerity and Growth
Some of the 2011/12 attendees included:
Josef Ackermann (Chairman of Deutsche Bank),
Jean-Claude Trichet (President of the European Central Bank),
Chris Hughes (Co-Founder of Facebook),
Reid Hoffman (CEO of Linkedin),
Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon)
Keith Alexander (Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, NSA).
Heads of Barclays Bank, AXXA, HSBC and the President of The World Bank Group were also in attendance. [Source: http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php] To see so many tech luminaries in attendance at Bilderberg is indicative of the kind of power and respect that geeks and hackers now command in shaping the world stage. Just how many high-level decisions are being influenced by this new technorati is hard to say, but in a rapidly changing world where technology is moving faster than the old rules remain relevant, we are seeing that people, united through technology on a global scale – not governments – are dictating the speed of change. Joining The Dots None of this means that bitcoins ride is going to be friction-free - just because Eric Schmidt is open to the idea of bitcoin displacing traditional currencies (as he and Jared Cohen alluded to in a recent CNBC interview), does not mean that Douglas Flint (Group Chairman, HSBC) is going to be equally enthused. However, I do think that if we join up all the dots the general conclusion that we can draw looks overwhelmingly positive for the future of bitcoin. That so many powerful actors within the intelligence community, technology industry and government have let bitcoin survive this long is almost an endorsement itself. It suggests to me that any nefarious corporations that attempt to shutdown bitcoin because of a perceived threat to their business model, will be met by those same powerful actors coming together to ensure they will have a very tough fight on their hands. Indeed, in the years to come, we may well see Hilary Clinton coming out to trumpet bitcoin as “an important tool for freedom of expression around the world” in much the same way she praised the TOR project. And perhaps, ultimately, we will discover that bitcoin, like TOR, was also developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory. Though I prefer to think it was just some lone genius sitting in his attic who accidentally changed the world. Whatever may be the case, it seems that - for now at least - our governments have handed their people a rare gift – the freedom to shape their own future. It's up to us to try not to screw that up.
These 25 top-voted posts from r/btc this week show that users and miners are working on real solutions to help Bitcoin move forward, while Core/Blockstream are obstructing progress and losing support. Please help spread this information (including translating for the Chinese-speaking community)!
Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Block Size Increase Hard Fork
Leaders of Core had a childish little selfish tantrum about wanting to work on what cool stuff they wanted to build and wouldn't listen. It would have been relatively safe and easy to introduce the 2mb HF if it was progressed collectively and collaboratively with good will by all parties. All of this could have been avoided long ago. There is one person who is very influential who we know to be adamant about blocks being confined to 1mb.
Hardfork in July 2017 will be too late. If you read the statement by Peter "I don't have a clue about economics" Todd you might start to puke. “Unfortunately Bitcoin simply doesn't scale well" How about you start to tell what exactly doesn't scale you fuckhead? P.S.: The blockchain is growing indefinitely, if you don't like that fact you should choose something else than cryptocurrencies or come up with a better way.
This is classic narrowmindedness on PT's part. He'd also be the first one to say that the internet is not sustainable as it produces exponentially more and more data. These guys are fucking idiots and really have no idea what they are talking about, all they see is "BLOAT!" and "TOO BIG FOR CURRENT NODES!" then react accordingly without even thinking about the fact that Bitcoin's usefulness mitigates these limiting factors almost entirely.
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
There are limits on routing table sizes, but they are not top-down-specified-in-a-standards-document protocol limits. They are organic limits that arise from whatever hardware is available and from the (sometimes very contentious!) interaction of the engineers keeping the Internet backbone up and running.
We've long established that the 1mb limit (or their refusal to remove it) has absolutely nothing to do with technical concerns. It's a political matter, whose raison d'être we can only infer. Time to stop the bullshit and the [s]quabbling. Chinese miners wake up! Time to try something new. It quite literally can't be worse than what's going on right now.
Bitcoin has become embroiled in debate over the block size - an important topic for the health of the network, but not something that should halt progress in a young and rapidly developing field. The developer community in Bitcoin feels fairly dormant. Bitcoin never really made it past the stage of simple wallets and exchanges. Bitcoin’s “leadership” is ... toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of Core developers, recently referred to other Core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well-meaning dips***s.”
This was a good sobering read. It is also worth noting that Coinbase was left with little choice but to broaden its offerings given the current state of Bitcoin usability ... When BS hijacked BTC away from being money, it screwed a lot of business and usage plans. ... Praise be to the free market and the market place of ideas.
REPOST from 12/2015: "If there are only 20 seats on the bus and 25 people that want to ride, there is no ticket price where everyone gets a seat. Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they are fixed by adding seats, which in this case means raising the blocksize cap." – Vibr8gKiwi
By the way, this shows that a certain other trending OP from today: Why all the disinformation? Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees. Currently $0.05 ...is total bullshit. But that other OP was posted in an echo-chamber of censorship (r\bitcoin). That is dangerous (for them), because it allows them to enjoy the illusion that they are right - when in reality, they are wrong, because they are ignoring the fact that full blocks DO matter: because the overflow goes elsewhere (into fiat, into alts, etc.).
Bitcoin exchange and wallet service Coinbase is adding support for ether, the native cryptocurrency of the Ethereum network. ...
This is quite significant. I would interpret this as a loss of confidence in Blockstream to provide what customers need in a timely manner. While Blockstream wastes time figuring out how to stuff all the world's transaction data into their beloved tiny blocks, the market will move on to solutions that can actually scale and can scale NOW.
Opinions on Gavin over there are variously: 1 - Why aren't you coding for Core? 2 - Which agency do you work for? 3 - Haha classic suxxor A very telling series of questions that the false agenda has fermented and sunk in.
It's actually kind of brilliant ! Think about it: no need for super dangerous hard forks, and not even soft forks. No new code needed, no testing, nothing. All it took was 2-3 years of endless stalling, organizing some fake conventions, a bit of character assassination and demonization here and there, nothing major. Done. It was actually very well-thought-out. Congratulations and hat off to nullcadam3us and all their drones.
Bitcoin is a giant, global "Consensus-tron" based on a fundamental meta-rule: "51% Consensus based on Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Blockstream/Core is trying change this meta-rule, to make it "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") - the MOST CONTENTIOUS change conceivable in Bitcoin The main characteristic of Bitcoin is that it is basically a kind of global "consensus-producing machine" or "Consensus-tron" - which runs based on a fundamental meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" - also called "Nakamoto Consensus". Recently, Blockstream has started trying to quietly change this fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin based on "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Instead, they have proposed a totally different meta-rule based on "95% Consensus" - which they like to call "Strong Consensus", but a better name would probably be "Extreme Consensus", to show what an extreme change it would be.
Every binary vote has an opposite side. 95% consensus is actually 5% consensus of the opposing team. Would you like a 5% consensus system? No? Then you wouldn't like a 95% consensus system. That's why 50% is the only valid threshold -- because it's the only one that makes both sides equal.
Continuing on this road , soon Coinbase and Circle will probably allow to send and receive Ether, and Coinbase and Bitpay will offer the option to pay in Ether. At that point Gregonomic fee pressure will go out of the window. The first mover led the ground work, but it's not an exclusive advantage. Bitcoin needs to wake up from the Blockstream-induced coma !!!
This is so painfully obvious. The users do not want a "fee market". Blockstream is absolutely hell-bent on giving us one, despite there being no need for a "fee market" at this point in time. Therefore the free market will do its job and provide an alternative to Bitcoin, and the users will move to the alternative where they will get what they actually want.
Bitcoin users are speaking out, and they want bigger blocks. Compare these 2 OPs: r\bitcoin: "Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees" (100 upvotes) vs btc: "Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they can only be fixed by raising the blocksize cap" (200 upvotes)
The block size issue has turned me off to bitcoin entirely, I no longer evangelize, no longer buy or use them. Blockstream has destroyed all the good-will I had for Bitcoin. Once the block sizes are larger, and continue rising with use, I'll be interested again. until then, Bitcoin can wallow in the fail
Damn fucking straight, the larger block side has been compromising for over a year and they have refused to compromise from day one. Now is not the time to compromise, now is the time to sweep them aside as they have brought nothing to the table. These devs shouldn't even be given the time of day considering their open contempt for larger blocks and the miners should be finding devs that will give them what they need, rather than trying to negotiate with asshats that refuse to negotiate.
"It's truly funny how blockstream are dead against 2mb of block data using traditional transactions along with linear signature validation... but blindly think that 2.85mb of segwit + confidential payment codes + other features is acceptable." And also funny that their roadmap allows for 5.7mb blocks when blockstream decide its ok for the hard fork.. yet they cant explain what network bandwidth restrictions are currently preventing 2mb now but weirdly and suddenly not an issue for 5.7mb next year...
It's a matter of ego and politics. From a computer science standpoint, Adam Back wanted the 2-4-8 mb scaling originally, which would have been completely safe (and smart). Segwit is required for the Lightning Network and some other things Blockstream wants to centralize and profit from. No better way to get something you need in there than making it necessary for scaling and saying it's the best solution. Segwit is a backwards approach compared to the easier and cleaner solution of increasing the blocksize
maaku7: "I don't know anyone who is actually working on a hard fork right now (although I'm sure someone is). Keep in mind very few core developers were at the HK meeting and that 'agreement' is mostly not acceptable to those who were not there." The Hongkong Farce. Great job Core and Chinese/Georgian 'miners'!
HF will never happen unless miners switch client. The problem is miners still trust Adam & Co. The day Mike Hearn left, he told me: "Both Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell are extremely skilled manipulators, timewasters and both of them have been caught lying red handed. I strongly suggest you just ignore both of them. I do not plan to take part in Bitcoin related discussions further". From my experience, Adam will tell you whatever you want to hear, but do something different behind your back. Just look at his presentations he gave to the miners and others, they are full of lies and inaccuracies. This isn't rocket science. I just can't understand why people keep buying bullshit from a guy who's not even a core dev, but president of a company that only benefits from making sure Bitcoin itself is crippled so people are forced offchain.
That was known opinion by Mark [Friedenbach, maaku7]. He said right after HK that it is not Core's agreement, that individual developers there were not representatives for Core. And that the HF block limit increase is not an option. I don't know what are miners still expecting and waiting for.
There's more than enough developer talent in the Bitcoin space to ensure a hard fork comes off successfully, but the Core developers have divided the community with lies to make it more difficult to pull off. Instead of helping achieve it, they have created community-wide FUD.
My opinion is that we can't have Blockstream at all involved in Bitcoin any longer. If you keep them involved, even after a blocksize increase, we will suffer in the future. Similar to malware, you have to remove it.
Hearn describes in the interview how people in the developer scene do not truly want the cryptocurrency to be decentralized.
“They say they want so, but that’s not what they want. Bitcoin is a young, unripened Democracy, in which a group of developers hold the power. And this group is desperately trying to prevent a real vote on the future of Bitcoin.” ... “[They] won’t vote against Core, because [they’ve] been told voting is dangerous,” Hearn elucidates. “The miners are not per se against proposals to increase the capacity, such as something like Bitcoin Classic wants. The miners refuse to vote. At this point, some developers, including myself, lost interest, because we realized it no longer was a debate about the block size. Suddenly it was trying to convince Chinese people democracy is a good thing.”
~ Mike Hearn
Sadly, he sounds like the voice of reason in a world gone mad.
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch. People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
This is so true. I mean, look at the logic. If $0.01 is not enough, and everyone sets it at $1.00, then it is still not enough because the number of transactions at the 'higher' price is still too many and blocks are still full with transactions being ignored.
The core devs (Wladimir and Maxwell) do not care about the price of bitcoin. They do not care to give investors a clear indication of what capacity will be in the near or mid future. This is contrary to the fact that everything else is known. Roger Ver is right. Investors (Hodlers) are a large part of what makes bitcoin valuable. Without a clear indication of what capacity is going to be in the future there is no clear indication of what the worth of Bitcoin actually is.
Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin.
Gregory Maxwell (nullc) & /bitcoin have deleted my posts They have also banned me from any discussion on their subreddit. I was simply posting that Gregory Maxwell (nullc) is lying when he says "the Chinese Bitcoin community stands behind us". This is false, they do not. In fact, a respected member from the Chinese Bitcoin community said this: "Do you know that what you are doing is harming bitcoin by spreading misinformation? I'm from China. I can just tell you the common sense in the Chinese Community of Bitcoin. No one likes BlockStream now! People in China all know that it is Greg Maxwell who is blocking bitcoin by limiting block size. I dare say, your company can never develop any business in China in the future."
Jihan of Antpool, great response in regards to Chinese Bitcoin discussion on /bitcoin I was banned from:
Maxwell, When you talking about "in fact", it smells like no fact. You are spreading very serious rumors about the mining network situation. Antpool has been connected to Relay Network and also testing a new network called Falcon after being invited. The total network orphan rate has been keeping lower and lower in the past months, which is an evidence that the network is working in a much better situation. Antpool in the past April have only 1 orphaned block, which is an evidence that there is no selfish mining situation - a selfish mining attack will generate higher orphan rate on both competitors and attackers. On the https://poolbench.antminer.link/, you can find ... the performance of a mining pool. (This is a third party site, this is fact.) Antpool and other mining pools had made the position clear as water since in the Hong Kong meeting, that SegWit+HF [is] coming as package. If you just realized right now, ... the communication problem inside Core, you cannot blame anyone else. We will not activ[ate] the SegWit until seeing the promised (by "individuals" yes I know Maxwell could not be represented) HF code being released in Bitcoin Core. If everything is progressed according the HK Consensus, the SegWit will not be stalled. The SegWit as a very th[o]rough improvement/change [and] will need to be carefully tested and reviewed after its release, at least for several months. During which time the HF can be proposed, defined, implemented and released. While the max blocksize limit lifting can be activated later, but as the code is already contained in the release, most of the economic nodes in the network will be compatible with the coming blocksize bumping up. Bitcoin is a worldwide economy infrastructure and it requires working together and moving forward. Greg, you need to have some self control from talking like a human flesh fascist propaganda machine, trying to attack anyone who disagree with you. Please don't tag those concerns as "pro-altcoin". (Another evidence of your problematic speaking style.) The concerns are genuine concerns. Some of the concerns coming from people who hold very large stake of Bitcoin since early time. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the town. I also see some small blockers are very active in the competing coin development. You cannot use this methods to distinguish people at all. Then stop judging people's intention and unrelated behavior but focus on the problem itself. The only thing I have to add is that you can't wait for Mr. Maxwell and his company to deliver their promise. It is a toxic arrangement and we need to focus on looking past them, repairing the damage and working towards the future. When there are too many lies and scandal involved, you have to cut your losses and walk away. Investors around the world will be confident once we start making firm moves. Positive press from Forbes will help repair confidence with investors. Either way, thank you! We are all committed to working together.
In successful open-source software projects, the community should drive the code - not the other way around. Projects fail when "dead scripture" gets prioritized over "common sense". (Another excruciating analysis of Core/Blockstream's pathological fetishizing of a temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge)
The essence of Gavin's point reminded me of the things the Agile Manifesto was meant to address. ... The behaviour of Blockstream is like the most pathological cases of capital-E Enterprise software development I've seen.
Why is it not recognized that ANY block size limit is a hack on a hack Bitcoin will NOT work right until the size limit hack is removed entirely. The limit is being leveraged to justify many actions. All of which would be moot if the limit did not exist.
You're absolutely right. Miners have always regulated the size of their own blocks and still do. We see it in the form of excluding zero-fee transactions, SPV mining, spam filtering, etc. They will do the same without a limit. All in the name of maintaining profitability.
Gavin left the role of lead maintainer of Bitcoin Core in April, 2014, and handed the position over to Wladimir van der Laan. Two sides of the same coin Andresen’s involvement with Bitcoin was undoubtedly crucial in keeping the promising project afloat after Satoshi’s departure; however, his enthusiasm gave rise to another side of him that didn’t sit right with the rest of the team. Gavin Andresen was an early contributor of code to Bitcoin with overall GitHub commits to Bitcoin Core around 484. In 2015, Andresen joined MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative. Additionally, he serves as the Chief Scientist of the failed Bitcoin Foundation, and is an advisor to Coinbase and Zcash. History with Bitcoin. Andresen and Satoshi Nakamoto communicated often through Bitcointalk in ... Gavin Andresen is an American computer scientist and software developer best known for his early contributions to bitcoin. Andresen took up the role of lead developer of bitcoin core after Satoshi ... Gavin Andresen (born Gavin Bell) is a software developer best known for his involvement with Bitcoin.He is based in Amherst, Massachusetts. Originally a developer of 3D graphics and virtual reality software, he became involved in developing products for the Bitcoin market in 2010, and by 2011 was designated by Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin, as lead developer on Bitcoin ... Gavin Andresen (geb. Gavin Bell) ist ein Softwareentwickler, der vor allem für seine Beteiligung an Bitcoin bekannt ist. Er hat seinen Sitz in Amherst, Massachusetts. Ursprünglich ein Entwickler von 3D-Grafik- und Virtual-Reality-Software, war er 2010 an der Entwicklung von Produkten für den Bitcoin-Markt beteiligt und wurde von Satoshi Nakamoto zum führenden Entwickler der ...
The Bitcoin Show: Special Bitcoin Conference Coverage: Gavin Andresen - 08/20/2011
Gavin Andresen, Principal of the BitCoin Virtual Currency Project, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about BitCoin, an innovative attempt to create a decentralized electronic currency. Gavin Andresen, chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, speaks about Craig Wright, who has publicly identified himself as Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. Bitcoin client developer Gavin Andresen talks about how he got started in bitcoin. Recorded at the 2011 Bitcoin Conference in New York City. Chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, Gavin Andresen is today's guest. Host: Leo Laporte Guest: Gavin Andresen Download or subscribe to this show at twi... MLTalks: Bitcoin Developers Gavin Andresen, Cory Fields, and Wladimir van der Laan - Duration: 1:31:13. MIT Media Lab 8,689 views