Former Bitcoin Core Developer Jeff Garzik: ‘The Stablecoin ...

"We’re working with the government to register bitcoin exchanges as MSBs (Money Service Businesses) to make sure that the long arm of the government can indeed reach bitcoin." ~Jeff Garzik

submitted by GrumpyAnarchist to btc [link] [comments]

Voici LA chronique à découvrir, intitulée: La guerre contre Bitcoin. Idéal pour comprendre certains tenants et aboutissants

Voici LA chronique à découvrir, intitulée: La guerre contre Bitcoin. Idéal pour comprendre certains tenants et aboutissants… Bonne découverte.
La guerre contre Bitcoin
Bitcoin est peut-être le meilleur outil de liberté économique de cette génération, et peut-être depuis plusieurs générations. Malheureusement, Bitcoin a été furieusement étouffé par une guerre civile brutale depuis environ cinq ans maintenant; menée par des ingénieurs sociaux professionnels de certaines des entreprises les plus puissantes de l'espace des médias sociaux. Leur talent dans l'art et la science de la manipulation a permis aux "Bitcoiners" de se battre largement entre eux plutôt que de chercher à créer des modèles commerciaux innovants basés sur les données qui pourraient révolutionner l'économie mondiale via Bitcoin.
À la suite de la guerre civile de Bitcoin, trois versions concurrentes de Bitcoin ont vu le jour (BTC, BCH et Bitcoin SV ), mais il en est de même pour environ 3000 autres projets et jetons de « crypto-monnaie » se faisant passer pour des entreprises légitimes - jusqu'à un "exit scam" presque garantie, le fait de disparaitre du jour au lendemain avec tout l'argent des utilisateurs. Le principal bienfaiteur de la guerre civile Bitcoin a été Ethereum: une machine à états mondiale qui permet un déploiement facile de tokens et de contrats intelligents, mais le protocole Ethereum ne peut pas évoluer, et parmis les milliers de projets lancés, seule une poignée pourrait même être présentée comme avoir les ingrédients nécessaires pour devenir des entreprises légitimes. La plupart des autres sont des stratagèmes de Ponzi ou des émissions d'actions illégales - enrichissant les développeurs et escroquant les investisseurs amateurs.
C'est dans ce contexte que les défenseurs de BTC et de BCH, les porte-parole d'Ethereum et les altcoiners de tous bords s'alignent pour attaquer sans cesse le protocole Bitcoin préservé uniquement par le réseau BSV. Une industrie composée presque entièrement de criminels, de fraudes et d'arnaqueurs s'est unie contre BSV citant (et c'est là l'ironie) une prétendue fraude et arnaque présumée qui est l'existence même de BSV.
Nous devons nous demander pourquoi ?
Quel est le différenciateur clé de BSV?
Pourquoi tous les arnaqueurs se sont-ils unis contre lui?
Je suis fermement convaincu que pour la plupart, la motivation est la peur de la capacité de BSV à absorber l'économie mondiale et tous les autres projets «crypto» qui vont avec. Pour les autres, ou ceux qui ne comprennent pas le pouvoir du Bitcoin, ils sont entraînés dans une guerre culturelle qu'ils ne comprennent pas. Il est essentiel de comprendre les pouvoirs en jeu et leurs implications pour Bitcoin et l'économie mondiale.
Une histoire brève
Bitcoin a été lancé avec un "livre blanc" sur la liste de diffusion de cryptographie en 2008. Le pseudonyme « Satoshi Nakamoto » a déclaré une solution au problème de la double dépense. Or le problème de la double dépense de tous les précédents systèmes de paiement électronique était le seul facteur limitant l'adoption d'une monnaie électronique fonctionnelle. Il était impossible de prouver exactement qui possédait quelles unités d'argent sur leurs registres distribués, de sorte que les systèmes ne pouvaient pas faire confiance, et ces projets mourraient assez vite. Bitcoin a résolu ce problème avec un concept appelé « preuve de travail». Il poste la question: qui a brûlé le plus de puissance de calcul pour résoudre des énigmes arbitraires afin de rendre compte de l'état du registre d'une manière qui coûte de l'argent, de sorte qu'il y ait une incitation économique à tenir un compte honnête des avoirs de chacun. Ce processus est souvent appelé « exploitation minière » car les nœuds honnêtes qui maintiennent l'état du registre sont récompensés pour leur travail avec des Bitcoins toutes les dix minutes - un peu à la même manière d'un mineur d'or qui est récompensé par de l'or en échange de son travail.
Étant donné que Bitcoin n'avait aucune valeur lors de son lancement, il était extrêmement facile à miner et également gratuit d'envoyer des tonnes de transactions. En théorie, il s'agissait d'un vecteur d'attaque par déni de service (DoS). Une attaque DoS ou DDoS se produit lorsque les nœuds sont inondés de plus de données qu'ils ne peuvent en gérer et qu'ils plantent. Sur un jeune réseau Bitcoin, un crash comme celui-ci aurait été considéré comme un échec du réseau, donc un plafond de 1 Mo de données pour chaque dix minutes de temps de transaction a été codé en dur dans le logiciel - semant la première graine de la guerre civile Bitcoin . De 2009 à 2017, cette limite de 1 Mo sur le total des transactions était l'aspect technique le plus controversé du bitcoin.
Pourquoi est-ce important?
Une seule et simple transaction Bitcoin est relativement petite du point de vue des données, donc 1 Mo toutes les dix minutes donne environ trois à sept transactions par seconde avant que le réseau ne devienne trop encombré. Satoshi Nakamoto a plaidé pour un nombre de transactions au niveau de Visa, ainsi que son successeur direct en tant que développeur principal du projet, Gavin Andresen! Certains des premiers Bitcoiners influents comme Mike Hearn et Jeff Garzik ont ​​également plaidé pour plus de données par bloc pour permettre à Bitcoin de se développer pour rester un simple système de paiement électronique. Ils étaient pour des «gros blocs» contrairement au camp des «petits blocs» qui préconisaient une permanence de la limitation de 1 Mo de Bitcoin.
Le camp des "petits blocs" estiment que Bitcoin n'est pas un réseau de paiement, mais plutôt qu'il s'apparente davantage à une banque décentralisée conçue pour stocker des Bitcoins qui ne bougent jamais: une sorte de coffre-fort d'or numérique. Ils voulaient que la limite de taille des blocs de 1 Mo reste permanente sous les auspices de chaque personne exécutant un «nœud bitcoin complet» sans avoir à payer trop d'espace sur le disque dur. Cela signifierait qu'en période de congestion, les frais de transaction deviendraient absurdement élevés, mais cela n'aurait pas d'importance car le bitcoin ne devrait pas être négocié sauf en grosses quantitées de toute façon. L'autre problème est que s'il est bon marché de rejoindre la gouvernance de Bitcoin, alors le réseau est facile à attaquer par sybil, et je dirais que BTC est régi par des sybilles à ce jour.
Le camp des "gros-blocs" estime que tout le monde sur terre devrait être en mesure d'échanger et de faire ses affaires sur Bitcoin.
Les "petits-blocs" pensent que tout le monde devrait être en mesure de gérer soi-même le registre mondial chez soi, mais que seules certaines personnes très riches devraient pouvoir effectuer des transactions.
Après des années de querelles, en 2017, Bitcoin s'est scindé en deux chaînes distinctes, et en 2018, il s'est à nouveau divisé.
Alors quelle est la différence entre ces versions ?
BTC est actuellement la version qui a le prix le plus élevé, avec la plus petite taille de bloc et la plus grande puissance de calcul. Malheureusement, il est régi par des développeurs de logiciels et des sybilles qui contrôlent le consensus grâce à une utilisation intelligente de logiciels malveillants appelés «soft-fork» qui leur permet de saper les règles du Bitcoin. Ils utilisent ce pouvoir pour changer les règles des transactions en mentant aux nœuds et en leur disant de les valider quand même. Toute la culture BTC consiste à acheter du BTC afin de le conserver jusqu'à un moment dans le futur où il sera vendu. Les paiements avec BTC ou les transactions de toute nature sont méprisés.
BCH est un réseau basé sur Bitcoin qui pense que les blocs devraient être à peine légèrement plus grands, mais ils ont également des développeurs en charge des règles, tout comme BTC, et ils pensent que Bitcoin devrait être catégorisé pour être utilisé uniquement pour le commerce de détail, mais rien de plus. Le réseau change de règles tous les six mois. Les transactions non commerciales sont en général méprisées.
BSV est la version restaurée du protocole Bitcoin original avec tous les paramètres ouverts afin que les nœuds honnêtes puissent s'engager dans un consensus conformément au livre blanc de Bitcoin - par preuve de travail ! Le protocole est gravé dans la pierre afin que les développeurs de logiciels ne puissent pas bricoler les règles. Cela permet aux entreprises de planifier des décennies d'utilisation du réseau et d'investir en toute confiance. En tant que seul réseau bitcoin totalement sans autorisation, le commerce de toute nature est encouragé sur BSV. Tout, allant des réseaux sociaux aux expériences de science des données météorologiques ou aux tests de disponibilité du réseau, est encouragé. Paiements de détail, tokenisation, ou tout autre type de contrat intelligent est simple à déployer sans limitations. Bitcoin SV n'a aucun limite sauf l'esprit humain et l'esprit d'entreprise.
Et c'est la racine de la haine envers BSV.
Les "petits-blocs" ont investi toute leur réputation et leurs moyens de subsistance sur la notion que le bitcoin est incapable de s'adapter. Pendant des années, des experts présumés ont convaincu de nombreuses personnes que les limites de taille de bloc de 2 Mo, 8 Mo ou 22 Mo casseraient littéralement Bitcoin. Ils ont furieusement mis en jeux leur réputation sur ces fausses notions. Et ensuite, BSV a eu de nombreux blocs de plus de 100 Mo. En fait, il y en a même eu quelques-uns de plus de 300 Mo! prouvant que les petits-blocs se trompent sur les limites du réseau. Mais cette prise de conscience est une menace pour l'hégémonie du récit de Bitcoin. Depuis 2015, lorsque le Dr Craig Wright est apparu sur les lieux pour expliquer que le bitcoin avait en réalité ZERO limitations, il a créé un tollé massif parmi l'intelligentsia des petits-blocs. Les leaders d'opinion de l'époque étaient payés pour prendre la parole lors de conférences où ils expliquaient à tort que Bitcoin n'était rien d'autre qu'une réserve de valeur rare sans autre utilité. Le Dr Wright parlait de l'échelle illimitée du réseau, de son exhaustivité de Turing et d'autres notions inconcevables (à l'époque) sur Bitcoin. Sa passion et ses connaissances se sont heurtées à des calomnies et des railleries. Ils se sont concentrés sur l'attaque de son personnage au lieu de discuter de Bitcoin!
C'est devenu l'une des principales méthodes d'attaque des petits-blocs. Lorsque de gros-blocs parlent des capacités de Bitcoin, ils sont ridiculisés en tant qu'escrocs et le sujet est toujours dirigé très loin de la discussion technique, car les petits-blocs savent bien qu'ils sortiraient perdants. Ils fouillent les dossiers personnels et cherchent des moyens de faire taire les gens du camp des grands-blocs de Bitcoin de la même manière que les guerriers de la justice sociale s'engagent dans la culture d'annulation contre leurs ennemis politiques.
Qui est le Dr Craig Wright et que fait-il?
Si vous ne le savez pas, Craig Wright est le scientifique en chef d'une société de recherche sur Bitcoin au Royaume-Uni appelée nChain : une société de 150 à 200 informaticiens. Craig dirige l'équipe qui étudie les possibilités de Bitcoin et de ses applications dans le monde. Il est l'un des experts en criminalité numérique les plus reconnus au monde avec les certifications SANS et GIAC ainsi que les titres GSE CISSP, CISA, CISM, CCE, GCFA, GLEG, GREM et GSPA. En outre, il est un polymathe multidisciplinaire de troisième cycle: un doctorat en informatique, économie et théologie et titulaire d'une maîtrise en statistique et en droit commercial international.
En 2015, il a également été exposé par une publication conjointe de WIRED et Gizmodo en tant que Satoshi Nakamoto, le créateur de Bitcoin. Quelques jours après cette révélation, les gens qui le soutenaient ont vu leurs clés d'accès au code révoquées, et de nombreux autres ont été instantanément bannis. Craig a été mis sous enquête par le bureau des impôts australien pour ce qu'il considérait être une erreur de comptabilisation probable de ses bitcoins. Les retombées ont été agressives et rapides, avec une gigantesque armée de petits-blocs, organisée sur Reddit et autres forums, et nouvellement financée par l'argent de la startup pro-petits-blocs appelée «Blockstream». Leur message était clair: Bitcoin doit garder de petits blocs. Le Bitcoin ne peut pas évoluer, et toute personne proche de Craig Wright sera harcelée pour se conformer à une armée de comptes Twitter anonymes et sans visage.
Au cours des années suivantes, Ira Kleiman, frère du défunt Dave Kleiman, a poursuivi Craig Wright pour sa part du prétendu «Partenariat Satoshi Nakamoto», affirmant que Dave était plus impliqué qu'il ne l'était réellement, et l'affaire est en cours actuellement, jusqu'à courant 2021. Ira Kleiman pense que Craig est Satoshi et a investi une fortune incalculable et a obtenu l'argent d'investisseurs extérieurs pour poursuivre sa poursuite. Il est clair que les bailleurs de fonds d'Ira pensent que Craig est également Satoshi.
Les critiques qualifient souvent la révélation publique et le procès public de Wright de ternir énormément sa réputation, mais il convient de noter que les deux sont arrivés à Wright et qu'il ne souhaitait clairement pas être pris dans l'une ou l'autre situation.
Au lieu de cela, Craig est un défenseur passionné de la vision d'un Bitcoin avec de gros blocs, appelant à la professionnalisation, à la légalisation et à l'utilisation mondiales de Bitcoin pour une utilisation à tous les niveaux du commerce. La réponse à la passion de Craig et à ses affirmations a été d'attaquer sa réputation et d'endosser Internet avec le surnom de «Faketoshi». Lorsque de simples brimades ont échoué contre le Dr Wright, des attaques ont été intensifiées pour remettre en question ses divers diplômes, des pétitions aux universités pour enquêter sur lui pour plagiat dans divers travaux, y compris des thèses de doctorat, etc. Wright a même revendiqué des menaces contre la vie des membres de sa famille et il y a plus qu'une petite preuve que, selon Ian Grigg, une des légendes de la cryptographie: «des gens sont morts pour Bitcoin, vraiment, des gens sont morts».
Les attaques en cours
Cela ne peut être assez souligné: la communauté des petits-blocs est construite autour de tactiques d'ingénierie sociale professionnelle. Gregory Maxwell, co-fondateur de la société Blockstream, a été formé à la pratique de l'ingénierie sociale et l'a utilisé de manière si subversive comme un outil de propagande pendant son mandat en tant que modérateur rémunéré de Wikipedia, qu'il a finalement été démis de ses fonctions avec les journaux d'administration citant une litanie d'infractions, notamment:
«Gmaxwell s'est engagé dans la création de faux comptes en masse…» - Alhutch 00:05, 23 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Menaces, insultes grossières, usurpations d'identité d'un administrateur», -Husnock 03:18, 25 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Son comportement est scandaleux. Franchement, il est hors de contrôle à ce stade. Son comportement d'intimidation doit cesser.» - FearÉIREANN 19:36, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Sa liste de contributions est hors de propos. C'est du vandalisme. C'est un comportement auquel je m'attendrais d'un éditeur en furie, ce que, franchement, Gmaxwell est.» - Splashtalk 20h00, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Prétend être un administrateur, menaçant de bloquer les personnes qui ne sont pas d'accord avec lui, fait régulièrement des attaques personnelles» - SlimVirgin (talk) 12h22, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
Il passe beaucoup de temps sur Reddit et d'autres forums à semer la peur sur les dangers des gros blocs, et il a été surpris en train de faire semblant d'être plusieurs comptes à la fois en train d'avoir de très longues discussions techniques sur Reddit destinées à submerger les nouveaux arrivants avec ce qui ressemble à un débat intellectuel.
Qui d'autre est attaqué?
L'autre cible commune de la machine de guerre anti-BSV est Calvin Ayre: le milliardaire à la tête de l'empire du groupe Ayre. Calvin est un entrepreneur canadien et antiguais qui a lancé un incubateur Internet à Vancouver au tout début du boom Internet. Fils d'un éleveur de porcs, Ayre est surtout connu en dehors de l'économie Bitcoin pour la création et la professionnalisation de l'industrie du jeu d'argent sur Internet. Plus particulièrement, sous la marque Bodog, Ayre a aidé à moderniser les lois financières américaines compliquées et obsolètes en poussant les limites dans les marchés gris qui existent où les dollars américains sont utilisés à travers les frontières pour s'engager dans un commerce juridiquement compliqué comme le jeu d'argent. Son travail dans ce domaine lui a valu une petite fortune et un passage sur une liste des «plus recherchés» pour blanchiment d'argent. C'est un point sur lequel les petits-blocs aiment se concentrer, mais ils le sortent complètement de son contexte. Calvin a finalement plaidé coupable à une accusation de délit, mais a été le fer de lance de la modernisation des lois et règlements américains qui existent aujourd'hui sur les marchés complètement ouverts et fonctionnels. Il est respecté pour son travail dans l'industrie du jeu, les médias et la philanthropie. Calvin est certainement le bienvenu aux États-Unis malgré la critique souvent citée et dépassée selon laquelle il est une sorte de hors-la-loi.
Calvin Ayre
Dans l'économie Bitcoin, Ayre est une figure de proue dans la gestion de nœuds Bitcoin honnêtes pendant plusieurs années sous les marques CoinGeek et TAAL, et il est un investisseur dans nChain ainsi que plusieurs startups dans l'espace BSV. Bien qu'il soit probablement le plus gros investisseur, il n'est pas le monolithe que les petits-blocs laisseraient croire aux critiques. Il est important de comprendre que des segments entiers de l'écosystème BSV existent complètement en dehors de son influence.
Twetch, par exemple, est une entreprise indépendante appartenant à l'écosystème BSV, célèbre pour ses attaques contre les médias sociaux centralisés. Ils sont même connus pour se moquer des entreprises qui acceptent l'argent d'Ayre, en plaisantant que Calvin possède tout sauf Twetch. Bien sûr, ce n'est pas vrai. Un autre excellent exemple est l'investisseur / entrepreneur indépendant Jack Liu : ancien dirigeant de Circle et OKEX. Liu possède la marque de hackathons CambrianSV ainsi que des propriétés précieuses dans l'espace BSV telles que RelayX, Streamanity, Output Capital, FloatSV et Dimely.
Les autres acteurs clés sont MatterPool Mining et leur écosystème Mattercloud: une joint-venture entre des acteurs indépendants de l'écosystème BSV, avec des connexions directes aux protocoles BoostPOW et 21e8 et des relations avec des développeurs BSV indépendants.
Bien sûr, il existe également des marques précieuses financées par Ayre. Il s'agit notamment de la propriété partielle via l'investissement dans HandCash, Centi, TonicPow et Unwriter's Planaria Corp.
Une autre mesure importante à prendre en compte est la distribution de la puissance de hachage. Alors qu'à un moment de l'histoire, les entreprises appartenant à Ayre représentent une quantité importante de hachage sur bitcoin, BSV est aujourd'hui en grande partie exploité par des mineurs concurrents de Binance, F2Pool, OKEX et ViaBTC - dont aucun n'est «ami» de BSV ou d'Ayre, mais beaucoup sont ennemis. Ces mineurs soulignent cependant la nature ouverte et sans permission de BSV pour permettre à quiconque de participer.
Ayre est un acteur important, mais en aucun cas un contrôleur de la direction de la blockchain ou des entreprises indépendantes dans l'économie BSV.
Mais pourquoi Craig poursuit-il tout le monde en justice ?
Tout d'abord, et c'est crucial, le procès le plus important de Craig est l'affaire Kleiman. Les autres cas existent uniquement à cause de la diffamation publique du Dr Wright. Le hashtag #CraigWrightIsAFraud circule largement, poussé en grande partie par un mélange de personnages anonymes sur Twitter. Plus particulièrement Magnus Granath AKA «Hodlonaut» a été averti qu'une accusation publique de fraude courait à son encontre. La carrière du Dr Wright est en informatique et en criminalistique numérique, donc le déclarer publiquement une fraude cause un préjudice financier au Dr Wright dans son domaine d'expertise commerciale. Puisque «Hodlnaut» a refusé de cesser, on lui a envoyer une requête pour être vu au tribunal. Cela a causé le célèbre podcasteur de petits-blocs Peter McCormack à mendier d'être poursuivi aussi - en augmentant la rhétorique diffamatoire contre le Dr Wright. À la demande de McCormack, il a lui aussi été attaqué en justice pour être vu au tribunal.
Cette ère de service a engendré la campagne #DelistBSV menée en grande partie par «CZ», le PDG charismatique de Binance Exchange. Divers autres échanges comme Shapeshift et Kraken ont publié des sondages publics demandant s'ils devaient emboîter le pas, et des petits-blocs bien organisés ont voté en masse pour retirer BSV de leurs échanges - citant la toxicité du Dr Wright pour avoir intenté des poursuites en diffamation contre Hodlonaut et McCormack. Finalement, BSV a été retiré de Binance, ShapeShift et Kraken. Il a également été noté publiquement par Coinbase et Gemini qu'ils ne soutiendraient pas du tout cette version de bitcoin à la suite du drame public.
Au fur et à mesure que les choses progressaient, le fondateur de Bitcoin.com, Roger Ver, a également réalisé une vidéo publique déclarant Wright comme arnaqueur. C'était après avoir travaillé sournoisement avec les développeurs Bitcoin ABC pour coder des points de contrôle dans le logiciel ABC de Bitcoin Cash, divisant de manière permanente le réseau Bitcoin pour la deuxième et dernière fois - un acte pour lequel Roger est également poursuivi par d'autres parties privées en Floride. Roger Ver a été averti que des problèmes juridiques similaires se présenteraient à sa porte pour avoir diffamé le Dr Wright, mais les critiques publiques ont persisté jusqu'à ce que Roger soit également entendu devant le tribunal et fournisse la preuve de la fraude de Wright, sous peine de sanctions pour diffamation publique. Son cas est en instance à Antigua-et-Barbuda, où il est récemment devenu citoyen.
Et ensuite il se passe quoi ?
Nous avons établi l'histoire du Bitcoin, de la guerre civile, des attaques publiques contre Wright, Ayre et BSV. Au moment d'écrire ces lignes, nous pouvons revenir sur les attaques contre Thomas Lee, Tim Draper et Jimmy Wales pour avoir eu une proximité avec BSV. Malgré la pression sociale, le rapport Fundstrat de Lee a rendu un examen élogieux du protocole fixe et de l'évolutivité infinie de BSV. Lee et son équipe étaient heureux de prendre la parole lors des événements précédents de CoinGeek, même après le tollé public.
Pour la conférence CoinGeek 2020 à New York, McCormack, Hodlonaut, « Arthur Van Pelt » et d'autres acteurs tels que le Dan Held de Kraken et une cacophonie de trolls anonymes sur Twitter ont mis à profit leur expérience de la culture d'annulation à la bolchevique pour faire pression sur les orateurs Gary Vaynerchuk , et d'autres orateurs prévus afin de les forcer à annuler leur participation à la conférence. Cette attaque sociale contre BSV, Dr. Wright, Ayre et les autres entreprises qui utilisent le réseau BSV pourrait être un cas gigantesque de fraude à la consommation. Ils trompent activement les gens en leur faisant croire que le protocole fixe et l'évolutivité infinie de Bitcoin SV sont en quelque sorte dangereux, alors qu'en fait, le protocole et le réseau sont imperméables à toutes les attaques, à l'exception de leur ingénierie sociale.
Bitcoin SV s'est développé professionnellement avec un portefeuille de brevets de classe mondiale. Il est utilisé par des entreprises indépendantes pour réaliser des profits et il est exploité sur le marché libre par un groupe décentralisé de nœuds honnêtes qui se font concurrence. Le réseau est fixe, sécurisé et en croissance grâce aux investissements de petites entreprises et de gestionnaires de capitaux mondiaux. Les mensonges au contraire sont basés sur une campagne massive de dénigrement perpétrée par les communautés d'autres cryptomonnaie qui craignent l'adoption mondiale de BSV comme outil de commerce et ce que cela signifiera pour eux. L'histoire ne sera pas gentille avec ces manipulateurs et leurs réseaux qui sont financés par les fraudes probables des échanges de crypto-monnaies off-shore, le (très probablement) frauduleux Tether Stablecoin, et l'économie de "pump-and-dump" qui sous-tend 95% du volume de négociation de l'ensemble de l'économie cryptomonnaie actuelle.
C'est une guerre civile. Il y aura toujours des victimes, mais alors que BTC et BCH se concentrent sur les ragots et les affaires illicites, BSV veut que le monde entier soit plus libre, plus souverain et plus capable de coopérer sur le registre mondial de la vérité afin que les entrepreneurs du monde puissent s'engager dans les grandes entreprises ou de simples nano-services sont rendus possibles uniquement par Bitcoin. Bitcoin est un test d'intelligence. Au fil du temps, les personnes intelligentes pourront voir à travers le brouillard de distorsion de la réalité créé pour confondre les innocents et reconnaître cela pour ce que c'est, une attaque coordonnée pour tenter de supprimer une technologie supérieure qui les rendrait obsolètes.

Des exemples d'applications Bitcoin que vous pouvez essayer dès aujourd'hui gratuitement ?
Si vous vous sentez prêt à faire le premier pas dans le futur vous êtes libres de tester les meilleurs applications du Metanet sur https://metastore.app/apps?sort=money
Le site le plus populaire du Metanet à ce jour est bit.ly/twetchapp, une version de twitter incensurable sur la blockchain, allez jeter un oeil !

_______________________
sources: traduit et inspiré de https://coingeek.com/the-war-on-bitcoin/
image : https://imgur.com/1Yb0Yle
submitted by zhell_ to BitcoinSVFrance [link] [comments]

17-24.08 Good Crypto Weekly Market Summary

17-24.08 Good Crypto Weekly Market Summary
​​Quick weekly news:
  • Bitcoin was the second-most-popular asset on TradingView after Tesla stock last month
  • ING Bank, Rolls-Royce join an alliance to promote blockchain education
  • Hawaii welcomes crypto exchanges back with a new regulatory sandbox.
Other notable events include:
- Decentralized money market Aave has released specifications for version two of its protocol
- SpaceChain’s International Space Station-hosted (ISS) hardware secured a bitcoin transfer while floating in Earth’s orbit.
Also, be sure to check out top altcoin gainers and losers of the week ⬇️
Aave’s Wave
Decentralized money market Aave has released specifications for version two of its protocol as the project eyes $1 billion locked under contract, according to DeFi Pulse. Aave will partner with real estate tokenization firm RealT to bring home mortgages to DeFi. RealT did not return questions for comment by press time. As reported by CoinDesk, Aave announced plans to transition to a fully autonomous and decentralized protocol through its “genesis governance” and Aave Improvement Proposals (AIP) scheme.
BTC in space
SpaceChain’s International Space Station-hosted (ISS) hardware secured a bitcoin transfer while floating in Earth’s orbit. Using multi-signature transaction hardware, the firm’s Chief Technology Officer Jeff Garzik authorized a 0.0099 BTC (about $92 at the time) transfer on June 26, the company disclosed Tuesday. Data can only reach the ISS via the craft’s encrypted ground station links. SpaceChain says this adds security and resilience to transaction authorizations.
https://preview.redd.it/t9f45ych0zi51.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc9f953cdb790c532e2f21e1fbbbd5bd7a7255c4
submitted by Kononenko_Ivan to GoodCrypto [link] [comments]

Reminder: Bitcoin (BTC) is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement

I think it's important that we occasionally point out the fundamental problems with the philosophy driving BTC's development. Explaining the benefits of Bitcoin in general without pointing out the problems with the current banking system would be... awkward. Similarly, it's difficult to explain the benefits of BCH without pointing out the problems with BTC. So here's why I think BTC is doomed to failure, and why BCH will not suffer the same fate.

Settlement

“Settlement” is the process of finalizing a trade. It’s when the “actual payment” happens. For example, a group of friends may typically exchange IOUs to help pay for meals, and may eventually settle by paying each other the outstanding balances with cash. Similarly, in a gold-based economy, banks may occasionally settle differences in digital account balances between each other by physically delivering gold. In both cases, the common form of “money” used in day-to-day transactions is in a sense just pretend. The IOUs in the case of the group of friends, and the bank account balances in the latter case are forms of substitute money that are just representative of the eventual genuine payment that should be made at some point in future.
Substitute money like this has certain benefits however, usually around being faster and easier to use than the underlying hard-money. When there are two forms of money being used like this, we can say that typical transactions occur on the “payment” or “second” layer, with occasional settlements occurring on the “settlement” or “base” layer.

Money substitutes can sidestep benefits of the base money

In a hypothetical economy where all payments are made with gold and silver coins, it’s nearly impossible to inflate the money supply. It’s also very difficult to censofreeze payments, confiscate coins, or spy on transactions. These sorts of interference require on-the-ground police action. However, precious metal coins are awkward to use, store, and authenticate. Being physical rather than digital objects, they require much more effort to store, transport and inspect. As a result, people will naturally move to store their coins in bank accounts and instead transact by transferring amounts between their bank accounts electronically. The amounts recorded in these bank account balances become a substitute money, and transactions between the accounts constitute a new payment layer. However, unlike the base money, this substitute money can be easily inflated, censored, confiscated and spied on; both by the bank itself and by government authorities.
From the perspective of a totalitarian government and/or the existing financial establishment, it is extremely important that that day-to-day transactions should occur on a payment system that can be centrally controlled; such as through electronic bank accounts. The assets that can be bought with this payment system, or the types of money that may serve as underlying settlement has little significance. Even if there are strong guarantees that bank account amounts can be redeemed/settled in precious metal coins, this is of little concern to authorities so long as the only way to make use of the value in these coins is to later sell them again using the normal electronic payment networks.
All of the powers to inflate, censor, confiscate and spy have much more power when applied to payment layers rather than settlement layers. For example, imagine if Bitcoin were to become a settlement money backing the value stored in all existing bank accounts. People would continue to transact using exactly the same electronic payment systems (including credit cards) and may be about as likely to settle in high-fee Bitcoin as they would be to settle to gold coins (if this were still an option). Yes, withdrawal of the hard money might be an option for those paranoid enough to keep their coins under their mattress / in their hardware wallet, but the promise of Bitcoin having any kind of practical impact on the financial freedom of people worldwide would be an utter failure.
So, in order to maintain control, the incumbent financial establishment need only direct/manipulate development such that Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer behind a more easily controlled payment layer. They do not necessarily need to corrupt Bitcoin itself.

Bitcoin is being hot-wired for settlement

Back in 2015, by far the most common understanding of Bitcoin was that it would function as a peer-to-peer electronic cash, suitable for small casual payments. That is, it would become so cheap, fast and seamless to use that people would always prefer to transact with it directly like cash, rather than using a substitute money on a secondary payment layer.
So, when the article “Bitcoin is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement” by Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen appeared, the title came across as a little paranoid. Yes, there were a few people working on Bitcoin who would prefer if it became relegated to a settlement layer for a different (perhaps more easily controlled) payment network, but the most common attitude by far was that technical scaling challenges would ultimately be resolved (with no fundamental barriers to this), and that Bitcoin would become an effective cash-like money for the world. There were simply far too many people involved who understood the importance of maintaining the cash-like qualities of Bitcoin for it to be successfully lured into becoming a mere settlement layer.
Fast forward three years, and we find the article’s warning shockingly prescient.
Part of the reason that this transformation in the direction of development has been successful is due to the promise that the Lightning Network (LN) will be an effective second layer that maintains all of the same assurances as the underlying bitcoins. The current widespread assumption in the BTC community is that the LN will eventually be used directly by everyone as a payment layer for Bitcoin. It can be shown (although it’s debatable) that control over the bitcoins in a LN node are as good as or better than control over the underlying bitcoins. Unlike in the second layer examples I gave earlier, bitcoins in the LN can not be inflated, are no more easily confiscated or censored and may be even harder to spy on than base layer bitcoins. With this understanding, many/most developers in the BTC community support the LN and are comfortable constraining the Bitcoin base layer such that bitcoins are not used directly for payments.

The Lightning Network is not for you

Back in 2015 and earlier, the idea that there was an agenda to transform Bitcoin into a settlement network (that had a hope of succeeding) was seen as a paranoid conspiracy theory. Now, people might doubt that the idea was ever even contentious. Similarly, I predict that there is an agenda to ensure that the Lightning Network will not be used by end users. It will function as a very effective way to securely transact bitcoins, but it will never be user friendly. It will always either require an unreasonable amount of always-on server hardware, or will simply be too complex and costly to set up for the average user. I predict instead that the LN will merely be an electronic transfer mechanism for institutions such as banks. End users will then only transact with bitcoins via bank transfers. For example, most people will have a Bitcoin bank (e.g. Coinbase) account, and will transact simply by instructing their bank to transfer money to the receiver’s account. Their bank may then occasionally settle by paying the receiver’s bank through the LN. At this point, the relegation of Bitcoin to being a genuine settlement layer will be complete.
With end users only ever seeing the digital numbers on their Bitcoin bank accounts, the number of “bitcoins” in the system can be freely inflated using much the same mechanisms as occur today with commercial bank created money. All the usual forms of confiscation, censorship and spying will continue.

Wasn’t this bound to happen anyway?

While BTC is being intentionally engineered to discourage direct use, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is instead being engineered explicitly to encourage it. BCH aims to maintain reliably small transaction fees and fast, friction-free transactions at the base layer. In this environment, there will be far less incentive for people to move to corruptible second layers. Furthermore, BCH was created in reaction to BTC’s design decision to become a settlement layer, and as a result, BCH’s most defining feature is its dedication to maintaining the cash-like qualities of Bitcoin. Therefore it is significantly less likely to become corrupted the same way as BTC, and has the community most dedicated to bringing a good truly peer-to-peer electronic cash to the world.
submitted by frictionfreebase to btc [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik explica la criptomoneda Metronome

Lanzado en 2018, Metronome es una criptomoneda autónoma desarrollada originalmente por Bloq y su grupo BloqLabs, ambos dirigidos por el ex desarrollador principal de Bitcoin y el arquitecto jefe de Metronome Jeff Garzik. Metronome ofrece su uso como una reserva de valor, unidad de cuenta y pagos. Según Metronome, la moneda nativa, MET, se ha distribuido de manera justa – el equipo no tuvo acceso a los tokens antes que el público en general.
Metronome cuenta con contratos inteligentes y APIs para que sea autónomo, confiable y portátil. Aunque Garzik está interesado en el diseño de bitcoin, Metronome se basa más en Ethereum.
Los usuarios que cuentan con wallets desktop de Metronome para Windows, MacOS y Linux pueden enviar y recibir MET y ether (ETH) y / o Ethereum Classic (ETC); participar en subastas diarias (más sobre eso a continuación); e intercambiar MET por el token nativo de la cadena en la que se encuentra el MET, y viceversa, con el Convertidor de divisas autónomo de Metronome en lugar de un exchange. Metronome está investigando activamente Qtum y RSK.
“Estas billeteras móviles han sido diseñadas y auditadas para reflejar los mismos estándares de excelencia que el sistema Metronome”, dijo Jeff Garzik, arquitecto jefe de Metronome, en un comunicado de prensa. “Nuestra comunidad ha estado pidiendo una forma de llevar la experiencia completa de Metronome a dispositivos móviles, y estamos orgullosos de haberlo entregado”. La billetera ha sido auditada por profesionales de la industria tanto dentro como fuera de la industria blockchain, como Zeppelin Solutions y Gustav Simonsson.
El trabajo de Garzik en Metronome ha tomado las lecciones aprendidas desde el lanzamiento inicial de Bitcoin y las ha incorporado al diseño de la criptomoneda.
“Intentas hervir todo eso en una experiencia de usuario comprensible”, dijo. “Si tomamos todas las lecciones aprendidas de todas las blockchains y todas las monedas desde 2009, desde el lanzamiento de Bitcoin hasta hoy, ¿cuáles son algunos de los riesgos a los que nos ajustaríamos? ¿Cuáles son algunos de los atributos que construiríamos en esa moneda? ¿Cuáles son algunas de las características faltantes que desearía que no estén en un Bitcoin o Ethereum o en la moneda tres, cuatro, cinco, seis “, dijo, mientras hablaba acerca de Metronome en el Consenso de CoinDesk 2019.” ¿Qué es lo fundamental en una criptomoneda? ¿Qué lo convierte en una moneda diseñada para durar? Obviamente está el componente de deposito de valor. Pero, ¿cómo se asegura de que mantiene su integridad en muchos eventos como los forks de cadena o ataques de doble gasto, 51% de los ataques, etc.?”

Salto de cadena

Una parte crítica de la arquitectura de Metronome es su función de salto de cadena. “Esa es la característica que realmente demuestra la historia de Metronome”, dice Garzik. “Es el único token que puede sobrevivir a la defunción de un blockchain y el salto de cadena es la característica que le permite alejarse de riesgo [en orden] a riesgo, para poder adaptarse a otro almacén de seguridad o a otro blockchain”.
Los usuarios pueden usar tokens MET en diferentes blockchains. Pueden mover sus tokens MET de un blockchain a otro. Pueden moverlo del blockchain de Ethereum a Ethereum Classic y, en el futuro, a QTUM. MET está diseñado para usar otros blockchains, como Ethereum, Ethereum Classic y Bitcoin, simplemente como rieles de seguridad.
“Estamos demostrando que un blockchain es este almacén de seguridad para estos tokens”, dijo Garzik.
Garzik advierte rápidamente que esto no es un intercambio, que es un evento imponible. “Cuando pasas de bitcoin a litecoin, de bitcoin a ethereum, has vendido bitcoin”, dice. “Y, en la mayoría de las jurisdicciones fiscales, usted tiene una base de costo imponible impuesto con esa transacción”.
Con la función de salto de cadena de Metronome, está moviendo el activo en sí de un blockchain a otro. “[Es] como levantar una barra de oro y mover la barra de oro de un almacén a otro”, explica Garzik. “Estás moviendo tus tokens de Metronome de un blockchain a otro”. Eso no es una venta o intercambio, dijo, antes de explicar la analogía de la barra de oro y el almacén de seguridad.
“Utilizamos blockchain únicamente para asegurar el sistema de Metronome [y] el token de Metronome”, dijo. “¿Por qué querrías moverlo de un blockchain a otro? Un ejemplo del mundo real es que diferentes blockchains tienen diferentes tarifas de transacción. Bitcoin y Ethereum tienen un nivel de tarifa de transacción más alto que Ethereum Classic. Si está haciendo muchas transacciones de Metronome, lo que podría ser inteligente es mover su MET de una cadena de Bitcoin o Ethereum de alta seguridad a una seguridad tal vez un poco más baja, pero Ethereum Classic más barato [para] hacer muchas transacciones, pagando tarifas muy bajas y luego volver a la cadena de seguridad más alta. Ese es un caso de uso del mundo real “. Garzik menciona quizás un caso de uso más acuciante. ¿Qué pasa si un blockchain determinado va a dejar de existir?
“¿Qué pasa si hay algunos problemas serios en el camino?”, Preguntó retóricamente a la audiencia. “Puedes ajustarte a ese riesgo a alejarte de esa cadena. Y 1,000 MET sigue siendo 1,000 MET. Al igual que cuando recoges una barra de oro y la mueves de un almacén a otro, todavía tienes una barra de oro y no hubo eventos imponibles. Del mismo modo, cuando mueve Met de una cadena de bloques a otra, sigue siendo MET. Todavía tiene el mismo valor que antes. Es solo un tiempo de liquidación más rápido, tarifas de transacción más bajas o evitar un desastre en blockchain, un drama en blockchain o algo así “.
A diferencia de los intercambios atómicos o los intercambios atómicos, que involucran dos monedas y crean responsabilidad gravable para cualquiera que las tenga, un salto en cadena no es un evento imponible, dice Garzik. Un intercambio atómico es un intercambio entre pares de criptomonedas de una parte a otra sin la necesidad de un servicio de terceros, como un exchange. Los intercambios atómicos, que también se conocen como comercio entre cadenas, pueden ejecutarse directamente entre blockchains separados con diferentes monedas nativas o pueden ejecutarse fuera del blockchain.
“Metronome puede saltar de un blockchain a otro por razones de gobernanza, pero lo que es muy, muy consecuente en el aspecto económico es lo que no sucede”, dijo Garzik. “No vas de un activo a otro. Por lo tanto, no hay evento imponible”.
Garzik argumenta que, por esta razón, Metronome es menos costoso de mantener, porque cada vez que los usuarios se mueven de un almacén a otro, saltan de una cadena a otra sin un evento imponible para registrar. “Simplemente está moviendo sus activos a una nueva ubicación”, dice Garzik.

Portabilidad

Garzik cree que la portabilidad es una gran parte de la historia de Metronome. “[Es] una gran parte de la historia de gobernanza propiamente de Metronome”, dijo. “Construimos esto para ser una moneda autónoma. Eso significa que nadie lo controla, ni siquiera los autores. Y una parte clave de ese autogobierno es que usted, el titular de Metronome, puede votar con su billetera [sobre qué blockchain de Metronome] debe ser para asegurar sus activos. Eso le da libertad de elección, le da la posibilidad de buscar la cadena más fuerte, la cadena menos costosa en términos de tarifas de transacción, [y] la mejor cadena en términos de liquidación”.
Los que poseen MET disfrutan de libertad de elección. “Es una reserva de valor y MET sigue siendo MET sin importar en qué cadena se encuentre”.
La billetera vendrá con una función de puerto integrada para cambiar entre blockchains. La mayoría de los usuarios de blockchain podrían no obtener mucho valor de esta función. “La mayoría de los usuarios se apegarán a una cadena la mayor parte del tiempo, en ausencia de emergencias y recuperación de desastres. Los traders definitivamente usarán bastante la función de portabilidad. Creo que si usted tiene algunos sistemas automatizados, usará la portabilidad para optimizar, por ejemplo, tarifas más bajas si está haciendo muchas transacciones MET, y luego pasar a [Bitcoin o Ethereum] para un tren de mayor seguridad.”

Continuar Lleyendo: https://cryptographicasset.com/jeff-garzik-explica-la-criptomoneda-metronome/
submitted by LosDodgersDodgers to CryptoMexico [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

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

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

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

Full blocks are not a disaster

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

Segwit

What is segwit

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

Why is segwit being blocked

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

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

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

What if segwit never activates

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

Lightning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

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

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

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

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

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

Fighting off 2x HF

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

Misinformation / sockpuppets

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

History

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

Misc (mostly memes)

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

I Flipped and Support Core After Understanding All The Arguments, But It Was NOT EASY (Explained)

I support core after understanding all the arguments. As a newbie developer, I am looking forward to working on some ideas for Lightning. Payment channels are very exciting. I am also a merchant that receives Bitcoin every day at Khemcorp.
Exchanges are bad:
The NYA agreement in my view shows that Bitcoin isn't anywhere close to as decentralized as we like. Clearly, the first generation Bitcoin companies have themselves become a monopoly and choke point on Bitcoin. More technologically advanced solutions are required instead of exchanges.
Local bitcoins offers a clumsy picture of how we could circumvent big businesses from choking Bitcoin.
I still don't think Jeff Garzik meant any harm (but his supporters certainly did). Core could have done a better job with this politically, it didn't need to go down this way IMO.
Here is why:
  1. Nobody made it easy to understand the arguments of core. All I really needed was just 1 long blog post by Blockstream explaining why 1mb blocks make sense, how the team has been maintaining this since 2012, overseeing the most successful growth of Bitcoin, how larger blocks shifts power to miners. How it doesn't end with 2mb because it shifts the ownership to a group of companies with vested interests, instead of one company (Blockchain) that has been working on decentralized L2 technologies. Blockstream CAN be transparent about their profit motives, in fact THEY ARE on their website. All this to me, is just ineffective communication.
  2. I really wish to appeal to mods like theymos to loosen up the soft bans. I was forced to btc because I could not voice my alternative views here. It became clear to me after a while this was the reddit with the smart people. I understand the want of core to protect themselves from trolling and shilling, but I think if you let the conversations flow, people will get it.
  3. Whenever I think of supporting core I think of people like Samson Mow calling anyone who supports a fork to be a enemy of Bitcoin. This is incredibly vicious for someone who sits on Blockstream, which indirectly has a lot of influence on core code. Whatever your thoughts - This gave me an incredibly angry feeling. Some guy in a chair, acting like he owns Bitcoin. It certainly didn't give the correct impression.
I hope after this mess that core will finally look at extending a small block increase to alleviate the current situation before lightning and other L2 solutions are ready.
However between the likes of Jihan, Craig Wright, The Chinese Government and the banks/corps that support 2x and the argument of decentralization. I choose decentralization every time, no matter the cost of the fees.
Nobody is going to scale to visa levels without L2 solutions. We already see this problem with Ethereum, having to change from POW, amongst other things. The ecosystem size is the value of the blockchain, not the amount of transactions being done on it in my opinion. If we go by the argument of transactions, then many other coins would be superior.
Bitcoin is valuable because it acts like a cryptoasset that is censorship resistant.
We already have a win. China banning Bitcoin is a win. Let's keep winning!
submitted by slowsynapse to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Truth About Bitcoin's Loss of Market Share

There are multiple reddit users like mrxsdcuqr7x284k6 claiming or implying in this thread that Bitcoin's huge loss of market share is not a result of the Bitcoin Core small block policy.
I don't know what the exact market share of Bitcoin would be right now if Bitcoin was not successfully derailed by people like Greg Maxwell & Theymos who fought hard to stop even small block size increases. What I do know is that the huge loss of market share Bitcoin has undergone and the growth of other crypto currencies is largely the result of what they did.
Anyone who is honest & intelligent and was around before, during and after Bitcoin lost massive market share, knows that the cause of this massive loss of market share and the growth of many other cryptos was a direct result of the artificial constraining of the transaction processing capacity of Bitcoin.
This is not merely a hindsight claim. Vast numbers of Bitcoiners TOLD EVERYONE that this is what would happen if the block size was not increased.
The only people who didn't see this coming (or claimed they didn't see it coming) are the Bitcoin Core supporters from that time who promoted Greg Maxwell's alternative design for Bitcoin.

So what was the Bitcoin Core message of 2015?

Check this 2015 Bitcoin Core blog post: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#why-upgrade
Note it says:
We don’t expect fees to get as high as the highest seen in this table; they are just provided for reference.
What is the highest listed fee in the table? $0.756
What were the highest median fees during December of 2017? OVER $30
Over just the last 6 months there have been multiple median fee spikes that go above this supposed "high" value of $0.756

What was the message of the Bitcoiners who wanted to follow Satoshi's plan during 2015?

Here's Mike Hearn in 2015 in an interview saying that the people that don't want to the block size to be increased want users to migrate to other system when the block size fills up. Whether the people he is referring to actually did want that or not is irrelevant. This is just one example (of 1000s that could be dug up) of Bitcoiners stating plainly that failure to bump the block size will lead to people migrating to other systems.
Here is what Mike Hearn predicted would happen if the block size isn't raised:
The aftermath
Bitcoin would eventually recover. Users who became frustrated at the extreme unreliability would give up and stop trying to spend their coins. Many coins would make it to an exchange wallet and stay there. Node operators would make their nodes auto-restart. SPV wallets would find some trustworthy central authority to get fee data from.
Most importantly, the overload would eventually go away …. because the users would go away. The backlog would clear. Fees would fall to the minimum again.
So life would go on.
Bitcoin would survive.
But it would have lost critical momentum. It would have become the MySpace of digital currencies. The faithful would have lost a lot of faith, and businesses that were trying to bring Bitcoin to the mainstream would “pivot” towards something else. People who were motivated by Making The World A Better Place™ would conclude the ordinary people around them would never use their products, and so they’d leave.
source
There are many details in Mike's blog post that he predicted wrong, but it's clear that he knew that the Bitcoin network would be degraded because of this fully saturated, small block policy. He knew users would leave the system.
Here's Jeff Garzik in 2015 warning people about the economic change event that will occur if the block size is not increased.
What did Gavin Andresen say would likely happen as a result of the small block policy? He said:
If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable.
source
These are just a tiny sample of comments from prominent Bitcoiners. They are not anomalous. They are representative of what everyone fighting against this small-block policy was saying.
Please don't let these ignorant fools & gaslighting snakes deceive you or others.
I remember exactly what happened back then. I also know exactly what Bitcoin is and which chain is Bitcoin.
submitted by hapticpilot to btc [link] [comments]

The Great Bitcoin Bull Market Of 2017 by Trace Mayer

By: Trace Mayer, host of The Bitcoin Knowledge Podcast.
Originally posted here with images and Youtube videos.
I just got back from a two week vacation without Internet as I was scouring some archeological ruins. I hardly thought about Bitcoin at all because there were so many other interesting things and it would be there when I got back.
Jimmy Song suggested I do an article on the current state of Bitcoin. A great suggestion but he is really smart (he worked on Armory after all!) so I better be thorough and accurate!
Therefore, this article will be pretty lengthy and meticulous.
BACKGROUND
As I completely expected, the 2X movement from the New York Agreement that was supposed to happen during the middle of my vacation flopped on its face because Jeff Garzik was driving the clown car with passengers willfully inside like Coinbase, Blockchain.info, Bitgo and Xapo and there were here massive bugS and in the code and miners like Bitmain did not want to allocate $150-350m to get it over the difficulty adjustments.
I am very disappointed in their lack of integrity with putting their money where their mouths are; myself and many others wanted to sell a lot of B2X for BTC!
On 7 December 2015, with Bitcoin trading at US$388.40, I wrote The Rise of the Fourth Great Bitcoin Bubble. On 4 December 2016, with Bitcoin trading at US$762.97, I did this interview:

As of 26 November 2017, Bitcoin is trading around US$9,250.00. That is an increase of about 2,400% since I wrote the article prognosticating this fourth great Bitcoin bull market. I sure like being right, like usual (19 Dec 2011, 1 Jul 2013), especially when there are financial and economic consequences.
With such massive gains in such a short period of time the speculative question becomes: Buy, Hold or Sell?
FUNDAMENTALS
Bitcoin is the decentralized censorship-resistant Internet Protocol for transferring value over a communications channel.
The Bitcoin network can use traditional Internet infrastructure. However, it is even more resilient because it has custom infrastructure including, thanks to Bitcoin Core developer Matt Corrallo, the FIBRE network and, thanks to Blockstream, satellites which reduce the cost of running a full-node anywhere in the world to essentially nothing in terms of money or privacy. Transactions can be cheaply broadcast via SMS messages.
SECURITY
The Bitcoin network has a difficulty of 1,347,001,430,559 which suggests about 9,642,211 TH/s of custom ASIC hardware deployed.
At a retail price of approximately US$105/THs that implies about $650m of custom ASIC hardware deployed (35% discount applied).
This custom hardware consumes approximately 30 TWh per year. That could power about 2.8m US households or the entire country of Morocco which has a population of 33.85m.
This Bitcoin mining generates approximately 12.5 bitcoins every 10 minutes or approximately 1,800 per day worth approximately US$16,650,000.
Bitcoin currently has a market capitalization greater than $150B which puts it solidly in the top-30 of M1 money stock countries and a 200 day moving average of about $65B which is increasing about $500m per day.
Average daily volumes for Bitcoin is around US$5B. That means multi-million dollar positions can be moved into and out of very easily with minimal slippage.
When my friend Andreas Antonopolous was unable to give his talk at a CRYPSA event I was invited to fill in and delivered this presentation, impromptu, on the Seven Network Effects of Bitcoin.
These seven network effects of Bitcoin are (1) Speculation, (2) Merchants, (3) Consumers, (4) Security [miners], (5) Developers, (6) Financialization and (7) Settlement Currency are all taking root at the same time and in an incredibly intertwined way.
With only the first network effect starting to take significant root; Bitcoin is no longer a little experiment of magic Internet money anymore. Bitcoin is monster growing at a tremendous rate!!

SPECULATION
For the Bitcoin price to remain at $9,250 it requires approximately US$16,650,000 per day of capital inflow from new hodlers.
Bitcoin is both a Giffen good and a Veblen good.
A Giffen good is a product that people consume more of as the price rises and vice versa — seemingly in violation of basic laws of demand in microeconomics such as with substitute goods and the income effect.
Veblen goods are types of luxury goods for which the quantity demanded increases as the price increases in an apparent contradiction of the law of demand.
There are approximately 16.5m bitcoins of which ~4m are lost, ~4-6m are in deep cold storage, ~4m are in cold storage and ~2-4m are salable.
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/lost-bitcoins-1.jpg)
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/lost-bitcoins-2.jpg)
And forks like BCash (BCH) should not be scary but instead be looked upon as an opportunity to take more territory on the Bitcoin blockchain by trading the forks for real bitcoins which dries up more salable supply by moving it, likely, into deep cold storage.
According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 15.4m millionaires in the United States and about 12m HNWIs ($30m+ net worth) in the world. In other words, if every HNWI in the world wanted to own an entire bitcoin as a 'risk-free asset' that cannot be confiscated, seized or have the balance other wise altered then they could not.
For wise portfolio management, these HNWIs should have at least about 2-5% in gold and 0.5-1% in bitcoin.
Why? Perhaps some of the 60+ Saudis with 1,700 frozen bank accounts and about $800B of assets being targetted might be able to explain it to you.
In other words, everyone loves to chase the rabbit and once they catch it then know that it will not get away.
RETAIL
There are approximately 150+ significant Bitcoin exchanges worldwide. Kraken, according to the CEO, was adding about 6,000 new funded accounts per day in July 2017.
Supposedly, Coinbase is currently adding about 75,000 new accounts per day. Based on some trade secret analytics I have access to; I would estimate Coinbase is adding approximately 17,500 new accounts per day that purchase at least US$100 of Bitcoin.
If we assume Coinbase accounts for 8% of new global Bitcoin users who purchase at least $100 of bitcoins (just pulled out of thin error and likely very conservative as the actual number is perhaps around 2%) then that is approximately $21,875,000 of new capital coming into Bitcoin every single day just from retail demand from 218,750 total new accounts.
What I have found is that most new users start off buying US$100-500 and then after 3-4 months months they ramp up their capital allocation to $5,000+ if they have the funds available.
After all, it takes some time and practical experience to learn how to safely secure one's private keys.
To do so, I highly recommend Bitcoin Core (network consensus and full validation of the blockchain), Armory (private key management), Glacier Protocol (operational procedures) and a Puri.sm laptop (secure non-specialized hardware).
WALL STREET
There has been no solution for large financial fiduciaries to invest in Bitcoin. This changed November 2017.
LedgerX, whose CEO I interviewed 23 March 2013, began trading as a CFTC regulated Swap Execution Facility and Derivatives Clearing Organization.
The CME Group announced they will begin trading in Q4 2017 Bitcoin futures.
The CBOE announced they will begin trading Bitcoin futures soon.
By analogy, these institutional products are like connecting a major metropolis's water system (US$90.4T and US$2 quadrillion) via a nanoscopic shunt to a tiny blueberry ($150B) that is infinitely expandable.
This price discovery could be the most wild thing anyone has ever experienced in financial markets.
THE GREAT CREDIT CONTRACTION
The same week Bitcoin was released I published my book The Great Credit Contraction and asserted it had now begun and capital would burrow down the liquidity pyramid into safer and more liquid assets.
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/Great-Credit-Contraction-Liquidity-Pyramid.jpg)
Thus, the critical question becomes: Is Bitcoin a possible solution to the Great Credit Contraction by becoming the safest and most liquid asset?
BITCOIN'S RISK PROFILE
At all times and in all circumstances gold remains money but, of course, there is always exchange rate risk due to price ratios constantly fluctuating. If the metal is held with a third-party in allocated-allocated storage (safest possible) then there is performance risk (Morgan Stanley gold storage lawsuit).
But, if properly held then, there should be no counter-party risk which requires the financial ability of a third-party to perform like with a bank account deposit. And, since gold exists at a single point in space and time therefore it is subject to confiscation or seizure risk.
Bitcoin is a completely new asset type. As such, the storage container is nearly empty with only $150B.
And every Bitcoin transaction effectively melts down every BTC and recasts it; thus ensuring with 100% accuracy the quantity and quality of the bitcoins. If the transaction is not on the blockchain then it did not happen. This is the strictest regulation possible; by math and cryptography!
This new immutable asset, if properly secured, is subject only to exchange rate risk. There does exist the possibility that a software bug may exist that could shut down the network, like what has happened with Ethereum, but the probability is almost nil and getting lower everyday it does not happen.
Thus, Bitcoin arguably has a lower risk profile than even gold and is the only blockchain to achieve security, scalability and liquidity.
To remain decentralized, censorship-resistant and immutable requires scalability so as many users as possible can run full-nodes.
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/ethereum-bitcoin-scability-nov-2017.png)
TRANSACTIONS
Some people, probably mostly those shilling alt-coins, think Bitcoin has a scalability problem that is so serious it requires a crude hard fork to solve.
On the other side of the debate, the Internet protocol and blockchain geniuses assert the scalability issues can, like other Internet Protocols have done, be solved in different layers which are now possible because of Segregated Witness which was activated in August 2017.
Whose code do you want to run: the JV benchwarmers or the championship Chicago Bulls?
As transaction fees rise, certain use cases of the Bitcoin blockchain are priced out of the market. And as the fees fall then they are economical again.
Additionally, as transaction fees rise, certain UTXOs are no longer economically usable thus destroying part of the money supply until fees decline and UTXOs become economical to move.
There are approximately 275,000-350,000 transactions per day with transaction fees currently about $2m/day and the 200 DMA is around $1.08m/day.
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-transaction-fees-nov-2017.png)
What I like about transaction fees is that they somewhat reveal the financial health of the network.
The security of the Bitcoin network results from the miners creating solutions to proof of work problems in the Bitcoin protocol and being rewarded from the (1) coinbase reward which is a form of inflation and (2) transaction fees which is a form of usage fee.
The higher the transaction fees then the greater implied value the Bitcoin network provides because users are willing to pay more for it.
I am highly skeptical of blockchains which have very low transaction fees. By Internet bubble analogy, Pets.com may have millions of page views but I am more interested in EBITDA.
DEVELOPERS
Bitcoin and blockchain programming is not an easy skill to acquire and master. Most developers who have the skill are also financially independent now and can work on whatever they want.
The best of the best work through the Bitcoin Core process. After all, if you are a world class mountain climber then you do not hang out in the MacDonalds play pen but instead climb Mount Everest because that is where the challenge is.
However, there are many talented developers who work in other areas besides the protocol. Wallet maintainers, exchange operators, payment processors, etc. all need competent developers to help build their businesses.
Consequently, there is a huge shortage of competent developers. This is probably the largest single scalability constraint for the ecosystem.
Nevertheless, the Bitcoin ecosystem is healthier than ever before.
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-ecosystem.jpg)(/images/bitcoin-ecosystem-small.jpg)
SETTLEMENT CURRENCY
There are no significant global reserve settlement currency use cases for Bitcoin yet.
Perhaps the closest is Blockstream's Strong Federations via Liquid.
PRICE
There is a tremendous amount of disagreement in the marketplace about the value proposition of Bitcoin. Price discovery for this asset will be intense and likely take many cycles of which this is the fourth.
Since the supply is known the exchange rate of Bitcoins is composed of (1) transactional demand and (2) speculative demand.
Interestingly, the price elasticity of demand for the transactional demand component is irrelevant to the price. This makes for very interesting dynamics!
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-speculation.jpg)
On 4 May 2017, Lightspeed Venture Partners partner Jeremy Liew who was among the early Facebook investors and the first Snapchat investor laid out their case for bitcoin exploding to $500,000 by 2030.
On 2 November 2017, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-02/blankfein-says-don-t-dismiss-bitcoin-while-still-pondering-value)said, "Now we have paper that is just backed by fiat...Maybe in the new world, something gets backed by consensus."
On 12 Sep 2017, JP Morgan CEO called Bitcoin a 'fraud' but conceded that "(http://fortune.com/2017/09/12/jamie-dimon-bitcoin-cryptocurrency-fraud-buy/)Bitcoin could reach $100,000".
Thus, it is no surprise that the Bitcoin chart looks like a ferret on meth when there are such widely varying opinions on its value proposition.
I have been around this space for a long time. In my opinion, those who scoffed at the thought of $1 BTC, $10 BTC (Professor Bitcorn!), $100 BTC, $1,000 BTC are scoffing at $10,000 BTC and will scoff at $100,000 BTC, $1,000,000 BTC and even $10,000,000 BTC.
Interestingly, the people who understand it the best seem to think its financial dominance is destiny.
Meanwhile, those who understand it the least make emotionally charged, intellectually incoherent bearish arguments. A tremendous example of worldwide cognitive dissonance with regards to sound money, technology and the role or power of the State.
Consequently, I like looking at the 200 day moving average to filter out the daily noise and see the long-term trend.
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-price-200dma-nov-2017.png)
Well, that chart of the long-term trend is pretty obvious and hard to dispute. Bitcoin is in a massive secular bull market.
The 200 day moving average is around $4,001 and rising about $30 per day.
So, what do some proforma situations look like where Bitcoin may be undervalued, average valued and overvalued? No, these are not prognostications.
(http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-price-pro-forma.png)
Maybe Jamie Dimon is not so off his rocker after all with a $100,000 price prediction.
We are in a very unique period of human history where the collective globe is rethinking what money is and Bitcoin is in the ring battling for complete domination. Is or will it be fit for purpose?
As I have said many times before, if Bitcoin is fit for this purpose then this is the largest wealth transfer in the history of the world.
CONCLUSION
Well, this has been a brief analysis of where I think Bitcoin is at the end of November 2017.
The seven network effects are taking root extremely fast and exponentially reinforcing each other. The technological dominance of Bitcoin is unrivaled.
The world is rethinking what money is. Even CEOs of the largest banks and partners of the largest VC funds are honing in on Bitcoin's beacon.
While no one has a crystal ball; when I look in mine I see Bitcoin's future being very bright.
Currently, almost everyone who has bought Bitcoin and hodled is sitting on unrealized gains as measured in fiat currency. That is, after all, what uncharted territory with daily all-time highs do!
But perhaps there is a larger lesson to be learned here.
Riches are getting increasingly slippery because no one has a reliable defined tool to measure them with. Times like these require incredible amounts of humility and intelligence guided by macro instincts.
Perhaps everyone should start keeping books in three numéraires: USD, gold and Bitcoin.
Both gold and Bitcoin have never been worth nothing. But USD is a fiat currency and there are thousands of those in the fiat currency graveyard. How low can the world reserve currency go?
After all, what is the risk-free asset? And, whatever it is, in The Great Credit Contraction you want it!
What do you think? Disagree with some of my arguments or assertions? Please, eviscerate them on Twitter or in the comments!
submitted by bitcoinknowledge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

B2X reverts replay protection due to security issue for lightning and other smart contracts

Yesterday Jeff Garzik merged a commit to the BTC1 repo (aka bitcoin2x) which reverts the opt in replay protection they were planning to use.
https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/98c0af58c29efbecba25818adb5531fa8c3d0506
The stated reason for this revert was that Peter Todd and David Harding had found that the replay protection could be used to break lightning and other similar smart contracts by using the blacklist address employed in the replay protection to make an un-spendable payment in the smart contract.
This leaves bitcoin2x with no replay protection as of now, and only 1 month until the planned fork date. Although it is not guaranteed, I would think this would cause exchanges to reconsider their support since they no longer have a surefire method of splitting coins, and therefore could be open to replay attacks costing them millions.
submitted by andrewbuck40 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik: “Today, bitcoin faces existential threats from forks, developer drama and so on. Knowing what we know and having a clean sheet of paper, we asked what would we build and the answer is this”.

...oh, so that explains it.
The old and effective Problem-Reaction-Solution strategy. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
I will keep posting this until the very day of the fork, with the hope that more bitcoiners learn the true nature of S2X/B2X/NYA open attack on Bitcoin disguised as an "upgrade". This is a 2X Trojan Horse, and do you know who is inside that horse? Top level banker's special-forces like Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glenn Hutchins (sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and DCG (Digital Currency Group).
We need to keep our efforts to expose and inform people about what S2X/NYA/DCG really is. Don't trust and don't do business with these companies and individuals supporting the S2X attack on Bitcoin.
Companies:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Individuals:
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets:
Brian Armstrong, Fred Ehrsam (ex-Goldman Sacks), Bobby Lee, Winklevoss brothers, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins, Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
I posted this 18 days ago:
Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.
TL;DR: B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly the people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin.
Edit: Brian Armstrong back on the list for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.

*Open Bazaar was crossed-out after their S2X support retraction, see edit at bottom.
These guys have deep pockets, but as you will see below, they are funded by even deeper pockets.
We can't leave this to chance or "the markets to decide" when there is such a malicious intent to manipulate the markets by those powerful players. So that's why all the people saying: "Don't worry, S2X won't happen" or "S2X is DOA" need to stop, we are at a 'make-or-break' moment for Bitcoin. It's very dumb to underestimate them. If you don't know yet who those malicious players are, read below:
We need to keep exposing them everywhere. Using Garzik as a pawn now, after they failed when they bought Hearn and Andresen (Here are the corrupted former 'good guys'), they are using the old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' combined with the 'Divide & Conquer' strategies to try to hijack Bitcoin. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
Public pressure works when your profits depend on your reputation. The social media criticism worked for companies like Open Bazaar, which after weeks of calling them out on their S2X support, they finally withdrew it.
Please contact the companies on these lists if you have any type of relationship with them, we have just a few days left until the fork:
Regarding OpenBazaar:
* openbazaar (OB1) developer appears to be spreading pro s2x fud. someone needs to fork their project
* PSA : Open Bazaars latest investment round was for 200K from Barry Silberts DCG (Digital Currency Group)
(See edit at the bottom)
B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly these crooks and the people they bribed that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin:
Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Bobby Lee, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team)(see edit at the bottom), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins (Federal Reserve Board of Directors), Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
Once people are informed, they won't be fooled (like all the poor guys at btc) and will follow Bitcoin instead of the S2X or Bcash or any other centralized altcoin they come up with disguised as Bitcoin.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Blythe Masters:
Former executive at JPMorgan Chase.[1] She is currently the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings,[2] a financial technology firm developing distributed ledger technology for wholesale financial services.[3] Masters is widely credited as the creator of the credit default swap as a financial instrument. She is also Chairman of the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation’s open source Hyperledger Project, member of the International Advisory Board of Santander Group, and Advisory Board Member of the US Chamber of Digital Commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
And before you dismiss all those hard and documented facts as just a 'conspiracy theory', think about this:
Of course, who thought that the ones holding the centralized financial power today (famous for back-door shady plots to consolidate even more power and control), would sit on their hands and let Bitcoin just stroll in and easily take that power away from them?
So, it is not a crazy conspiracy theory, but more like the logical and expected thing to happen. Don't let it happen.
Edit: Formatting.
Edit 2: Brian Armstrong taken out of the 'bad guys' list.
Edit 3: Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the blacklist for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
Edit 4: Due to Brian Hoffman just issuing this excellent and explicit S2X/NYA support retraction, I created this post to apologize for my previous posts (calling them out for the S2X support) and I will be editing my posts to reflect this positive change. I'm gladly back to being a supporter of the great and promising project that OpenBazaar has proven to be.
Edit 5: Added Blythe Masters (How could we leave her out?).
Edit 6: Added links to lists of companies supporting S2X/NYA.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What Really Happened Behind the Scenes with Segwit2x?

I was having a discussion with u/jstolfi in another thread about the topic of Segwit2x and how to me it seems a lot like its failure represented the total victory of one company (Blockstream) at the expense of every other company in the Digital Currency Group's portfolio. This seems very odd to me. Any insight into why Blockstream was allowed such a long-leash? It seems to me that all the events leading up to Segwit2x's cancellation are shrouded in mystery.
Let me give some more backstory for flavour. Before Segwit2x's cancellation I was happily perusing rBitcoin blissfully believing their narrative that everyone on btc was a conspiracy-loving kook and that moderation on Bitcoin was even-handed and they just worked to keep a few trolls out. I didn't start doubting this narrative until Segwit2x's cancellation.
When I first got interested in Bitcoin the scaling debate was drawing to a close. Segwit2x was about to happen and all the tumult and conflict was about to have a neat compromise-based resolution. The sentiment I recall around the time Segwit2x was rallying miner support even on Bitcoin was one of jubilation. The community was eager to finally have the Boogeyman of a chain split out of the way, Segwit was going to be introduced so that Greg and co. could work on their vapourware, and the blocks were going to be increased so that Bitcoin would not become a joke with high fees and slow transactions.
All the major players seemed on board. I listened to a podcast with Jeff Garzik and Charlie Lee on the scaling debate and they both seemed confident things would resolve smoothly. So I stopped paying attention. Then suddenly a spanner in the works appeared in the form of the BCH split. I didn't know what to make of that at the time, but I still felt the BTC community would rally together once Segwit2x was released in November.
Then futures started trading on Bitfinex and HitBTC and to my surprise the ratio was something like 8:1 in favour of Segwit1x. I listened to a podcast with Matt Corallo and Mike Belshe (Bitgo) shortly before Segwit2x was called off. While listening to the Podcast I could not understand why Mike Belshe had any confidence the market would accept Segwit2x considering the state of the futures market. He suggested there was a silent majority that wanted Segwit2x.
At the time I thought this was nonsense, now I'm not so sure. As part of DCG's portfolio Belshe might be privy to information about Blockstream's antics that he is unable to make public. More importantly though I am now aware that Blockstream is an investor in Bitfinex, and Bitfinex is a notoriously scammy exchange. They could very easily have leveraged their position with BFX to have them manipulate the market to make it seem as though segwit1x was unanimously favoured which could in part have led to the ultimate cancellation of Segwit2x.
I remember being shocked by the narrative shift on Bitcoin from being seemingly pro-2x to "We hate 2x because it would fire the core devs and they're the best custodians of the code." Since at the point I stopped paying attention, when Segwit2x support was rallying among the miners and the community was being prepared for Segwit2x, I thought the debate was between two factions: one faction the btc people with their conspiracy theories and their insistence that evil miners should be able to completely influence the chain at the expense of its users, and on the other side the benevolent Core devs who were doing everything in their power to prevent a takeover by miners and corporations, even agreeing to compromises like Segwit2x. I didn't realise the Core devs were the ones opposed to any sort of compromise as the entire ecosystem bowed under the weight of their 3 year refusal to take any real action. And this alone made me question the entire Core narrative. I'm a developer myself, and I know all the ways that devs can get stuck chasing perfect solutions and stubbornly and dogmatically resist pragmatic solutions because of the Utopian fallacy. So this refusal to compromise was a huge red flag for me. Once I dug deeper into the rabbit-hole I knew I could never support Core or what they are doing because I lost all respect for them as developers.
So to reiterate, what was really going on with Segwit2x? That anti-Segwit2x campaign came out of nowhere. It's interesting that there's a sudden narrative shift happening on Bitcoin now too, where suddenly a lot of people are asking for bigger blocks. That's either the narrative shifting again to try to thwart BCH, or the people who got caught in in Blockstream's astroturfing campaign waking up/being allowed to speak again. Was the majority really #NO2X or was that a ruse?
submitted by Zectro to btc [link] [comments]

r/bitcoin recap - October 2017

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the tenth monthly Bitcoin news recap. Last month I couldn’t post as I was travelling a lot and missed a few days of news. Normally seen that's not a problem, but Reddit decided to discontinue historical searches for specific timeframes. I know, I was sad too.
Anyways for those unfamiliar with the recaps, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
Now I know the price went absolutely 🥜 this month, but there’s a lot more going on in the space than that!
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in October 2017
Thanks everyone for fighting the good fight for Bitcoin these past few months. Just one more month and we'll have this 2x drama behind us! Hodl on.
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I think its time we have an educated discussion what the cause and effects are of a post August 1st BIP148 world. There are some serious concerns that need to be addressed and we will not overcome these issues unless we educate ourselves and start actively coming up with solutions.

So I think that there are some misconceptions that needs to be cleared up regarding the difference between signaling intent and actual activation of SegWit.
As I understand it come August 1st there will be orphanage of blocks that do not signal SW. This means that from August 1st until November 1st(+ retarget period) when segwit is actually enforced there will be a several month period in which the transaction format stays the same yet there will be two branches of "Bitcoin" being mined both conducting transactions that are compatible across both chains with no guarantee as to which transaction will make it into which blockchain.
If there is no clean way to divide your transactions to ensure with a 100% guarantee that it will make it into bip148 chain vs legacy chain be then we will have systematic chaos. There is also a possibility of massive losses. What if your receiving funds from a legacy chain address to your wallet that gets picked up in the bip148 block but not the legacy chain and the bip148 chain dies off? That tx never happened and you lose your money. Not to mention even if we assume a best-case scenario in which every single miner currently signaling segwit mines the bip148 chain we will see blocks confirm at approximately 30 minutes vs 10 minutes. Now if we're not delusional thinkers we will accept that we will not have a maximum output of miners and instead there will be a faction that goes one way or the other leaving us with probably much less than 30% of hashrate. 1hr blocks is my best guess. We currently go sometimes 40 minutes to 1 hour with bad luck from miners with the current hashrate. That means that we may see four to six hour block confirmation times with bad luck on bip148 miners, assuming my best case guess of hashrate. Of course you have to mention that it will sometimes go the other way and we will get 5 to 10 minutes Blok confirmation times as well.
Either way the more I look at the basic assumptions of how this will play out the more cautious I am about it. In order for this to succeed it has always relied on large economic actors transacting on bip148 supporting nodes, and I don't see how this can be done without widely deployed ecological support from both wallets and exchanges.
I still support bip148 but we need solutions for replay attack protection immediately and that won't happen unless we educate developers on the present issue and make them understand that this caveat is currently a do-or-die situation.
I mentioned the issue to the mycelium developer and he said that they are essentially looking into it but gave no further information. I hope that electrum and all other wallet providers are also looking into this issue as well as exchanges, but I also fear that there is a status quo divided between wallets and exchanges.
It seems to me that according to the communications published by Major wallet developers they are all favorable to bip148, but so far exchanges have been very wary to make any public statements regarding this proposal. This makes sense because they wish to protect their customers and their Investments and that means maintaining the status quo and not encouraging something that would cause disruption and possibly large economic losses.
Unless we can get replay attack protection integrated into the proposal or broadly across the ecosystem fast then it doesn't seem that the exchanges are going to give their customers a choice on this issue.
Without their support I fail to see how this will be successful. shaolinfry stated right in the bip148 submission that economic support is a do or die scenario. I'm of the position that if we cannot rally the appropriate amount of economic support before August 1st that we should withdraw software supporting this proposal as to not ensure chaos within the network.
Honestly this reminds me a lot of the Bernie or bust movement. I liked the movement because it was a Grassroots movement that was trying to stand up to the status quo. And in order for your movement to succeed you have to approach it with a cult-like fever as to instill upon other people within the public your cultish fever towards accomplishing a goal that seems pretty obvious as to be with in the best interest of the community (SegWit). But if your movement only divides society and allows another incumbent to dominate, or even worse a new player to step in and take over the system that is even worse, then all your movement has succeeded in doing is to worsen the situation at the exact polar opposite of what you were trying to accomplish, which was to better the system.
These sociological effects are difficult to examine from a personal perspective when you're in entrenched in the ideology, but post-event you can look backwards and say "wow I really fucked up". I think that's what Bernie or bust people are unanimously saying right now, or at the very least they're thinking it inside their heads even if they don't want to admit it to all of their friends and families because they wish to save face.
Think if all the Bernie or bust crowd voted for Hilary right now? We would have a different president. And regardless of your particular political alignment this demonstrates how when you have a minority faction within a system who are cultish in their approach how they can skew the race and change the outcome. Please don't downvote me because you think I'm talking trash on your favorite politician, I am not I am merely representing the social divides and how they can change outcomes.
bip148 is that cultish social divide right now and I would like to see more discussion on the realistic outcomes that we will see after August 1st and how we will navigate these outcomes. We cannot succeed by pushing our heads in the sand and ignoring the problems that this movement currently faces, and we should be willing to shift our position if in the face of overwhelming evidence we see that this will lead to a negative and not positive outcome.
The way I see it there are solutions to these problems but with time being limited I'm not sure how realistic it is to implement these Solutions to Rally the support needed for a transition in the right direction.
Solutions for success -
1) replay attack protection 2) major exchange support (get a single one and it will snowball) 3) a compatible proposal like what Jeff garzik is working on or bip91/COOP that has compatibility with current bip148 installations.
If we cannot accomplish one and two then I do not think that we should support mining a bip148 chain. If number 3 occurs then I think it will make the situation significantly less risky if there is wide support across the ecosystem that actually installs that software. If it is installed then it is assumed that it will signal SW which would then create a majority of the ecosystem signaling SW which would be compatible with bip148 because the blocks would not be orphaned. I think it would result in a minority chain that would be quickly abandoned since miners follow the money and a non-SW signaling fork wont be of any value if say, 75%+ of the ecosystem is not only mining SW signaling blocks orphaning non SW blocks.
submitted by Cryptolution to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Interview with JEFF GARZIK, Bitcoin Pioneer & Founder of Bloq, Metronome CEO Jeff Garzik Explains Metronome's Centralized to Decentralized Flight Path The Bitcoin Game #26 - Jeff Garzik’s The Future of Bitcoin CoinSpice Podcast 57 After Satoshi & Gavin, Jeff Garzik was Bitcoin’s Most Prolific Coder Bitcoin News #55 - Bitcoin around the World, Jeff Garzik Launches Token

During a recent interview with respected Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik, the crypto savant spoke at length about the various challenges facing by the altcoin industry today.Not only that, he also elaborated his stance on the “economic paradox” that is currently threatening to derail the future of Bitcoin.. Scaling is Still BTCs worst Nightmare Stablecoins and Layer 1 Days. Former Bitcoin core code contributor Jeff Garzik says stablecoins are propelling Decentralized Finance (DeFi) to the next stage. Related PostsJeff Garzik wants to protect Bitcoin and its network… in spaceSovereignty 2.0Mycelium: The Definitive Android WalletMaidSafe Makes Data... Friday, June 26, 2020. Home; News; Videos; Contact Us; Shop; You are here Jeff Garzik used to exchange emails with Satoshi Nakamoto before the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin disappeared years ago. He doubts Satoshi is about to resurface again.

[index] [14687] [13880] [6910] [15850] [16819] [9325] [521] [26586] [20420] [27267]

Interview with JEFF GARZIK, Bitcoin Pioneer & Founder of Bloq, Metronome

Top 10 Coins To Watch NEM, Stratis, Komodo, Nexus, Metal, Neblio, SONM, NAV, OMG, PIVX - Duration: 18:51. The Crypto Lark 16,586 views We recently spoke with Jeff Garzik, an early Bitcoin developer and the CEO and Co-Founder of Bloq about their latest project, a cryptocurrency called Metronome. https://metronome.io/ Strategic ... 🔴 Robert Kiyosaki Live: Blockchain technology, Future of Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 Robert Kiyosaki 80,229 watching Live now Panel Discussion – Bitcoin in 2025 – A Glimpse Into The ... Bitcoin news for the week of Oct 23rd with your host @theonevortex and the panelists: @da1vinci @Bitcoinzuela @francispouliot_ ! Announcements: -Shout to Shanobi and how he defines bitcoin ... We recently spoke with Jeff Garzik, an early Bitcoin developer and the CEO and Co-Founder of Bloq about their latest project, a cryptocurrency called Metronome. https://metronome.io/ Strategic ...

#