Bitcoin Watch. All about cryptocurrency - BitcoinWiki

Bitcoin - The Currency of the Internet

A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all political philosophies are welcome.
[link]

Bitcoin Ladies

A place for women who love Bitcoin.
[link]

BitcoinAustin

News surrounding Bitcoin in the Austin, TX area.
[link]

[H] 0.25 BTC [W] Cash in Las Vegas or By Mail spot+5%

0.25 BTC available. (Around $2500 USD)
Cash in Person off 215, Sunset Durango exit.
Spot Price- bitcoinaverage+5%
Minimum $300
No PayPal, no Venmo, no zelle.
Comment and DM.
You go first. Cash by mail, price at time of cash counting. Check my bitrated links to paxful, localbitcoins, Mycelium, freenode bitcoin-otc (and this Reddit account)
submitted by opticbit to Cash4Cash [link] [comments]

This subreddit's abusive treatment of deadalnix isn't much of a surprise...

As soon as he started talking about preconsensus I think his fate was sealed: The ethos of the BCH community here seems to be primarily centered around displaying hatred and especially hatred towards the technically sophisticated. Many people on rbtc don't care that deadalnix and ftrader were the ones that worked with Bitmain to create BCH in the first place, only that they stay in the kitchen unless in the service of hating something. That deadalnix actually like BCH enough to want to help it succeed on its own terms is, to many here, threatening. That he'd consider doing so via technical improvements that aren't yet understood by the least sophisticated among us is, apparently, unforgivable. Perhaps you might think that his efforts are misguided, but reasonable people would simply talk that out but not rbtc. Because so many of those gathered here are unwilling or unable to engage at a rational level, they instead insist that you meet them in the mud. But as the saying goes, "the pig likes it"...
I suppose it's true that technical competence isn't required to continue the circus of separating the ignorant from their money by selling them BCH which they mistakenly believe is Bitcoin-- even completely broken systems find their suckers :(. But it is required for BCH to make a lasting contribution to the broader understanding of mankind. I hope some more people will realize that you're now attacking yet another person whos efforts you have depended on, that it isn't them, it's you and the the constant toxicity here is not in anyone's interest.
submitted by nullc to btc [link] [comments]

Heated discussion in #bitcoin-core-dev: " luke-jr: you are abusive towards me and the other contributors."

Small excerpt:
luke-jr sipa: we don't know that yet, and our recommendations should always be what is sane even if they get ignored.
sipa luke-jr: that's a reasonable position... but the code is written from a viewpoint that we will get weight-limited block construction
luke-jr: and the release notes should describe the code
luke-jr then the code is broken (sabotaged, it sounds like) and fixing it should be considered a blocker for any release.
sipa if that is your viewpoint, then it is segwit that is sabotaged
i disagree strongly with that
Further:
gmaxwell I am fed up with this.
luke-jr same here.
gmaxwell luke-jr: you are abusive towards me and the other contributors.
you are obsessing over minutia on top of minutia.
You are wasting countless hours exhausting all patience.
Over matters which do not matter. The few obscure miners which will set non-defaults even though they get abusive and threatening contact from users (which drives away their hashpower); can still do so. If it's slightly slower? so what--- the latest software is dozens of times faster to creates blocks than older software and they hardly cared to upgrade.
it litterally makes no difference in the world, and yet you force people to spend hours and hours debating these things.
and I get to spend my time asking others to not leave the project because they are exhausted by you; but it even exhausts me too.
The last block from eligius was 64 hours ago. It contained NO transactions. I would say that createnew block being merely 29.5 times faster than the old code it was running until recently instead of 30x faster won't matter. ... except it won't even see that difference when it mines empty blocks with no transactions at all.
When it does actually include transactions-- it appears to produce maximum size blocks just like everyone else: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000...
The entire discussion is interesting. The conversation roughly starts here.
More context: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8459
submitted by SpiderImAlright to btc [link] [comments]

BITCOIN DIVORCE – BITCOIN CORE VS BITCOIN CASH EXPLAINED

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. Dell, Wikipedia and airlines have stopped accepting bitcoin. SatoshiDice and Yours switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users). Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin.
Roger Ver's companies used to use or still use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) are IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08)
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this. He pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have want they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Some great quotes from Bitcoin Core devs on BIP 148 UASF

https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2017-05-25/?msg=86145297&page=4
submitted by increaseblocks to btc [link] [comments]

[H] upto $500 cash, store nearby with most GCs [W] 105% BTC ETH LTC

You go first.

I know the rate isn't good.
Don't ask for discount.

Trade almost any time- m-f 9a-5p Pacific time.
could take me 15min to 2hrs. typically 30min.

Cards available (old pics) https://goo.gl/photos/9ECjSM6zfEYus2yu6

No rep here. But rep elsewhere
https://www.bitrated.com/opticbit/linked
Check Reddit link- Verified.
Paxful 1400+
LBC 3000+ Pro-Trader.
Freenode #Bitcoin-OTC wot
OB1 Verified Moderator.

exchange rate data from
https://www.coingecko.com/

Cards will be bought in Las Vegas from Vons, CVS, or 7-11
submitted by opticbit to GCtrade [link] [comments]

PSA: Clearing up some misconceptions about full nodes

It's time to clear up some misconceptions floating around about full nodes.
Myth: There are only about 5500 full nodes worldwide
This number comes from this site and it measured by trying to probe every nodes on their open ports.
Problem is, not all nodes actually have open ports that can be probed. Either because they are behind firewalls or because their users have configured them to not listen for connections.
Nobody knows how many full nodes there are, since many people don't know how to forward ports behind a firewall, and bandwidth can be costly, its quite likely that the number of nodes with closed ports is at least another several thousand.
Nodes with open ports are able to upload blocks to new full nodes. In all other ways they are the same as nodes with closed ports. But because open-port-nodes can be measured and closed-port-nodes cannot, some members of the bitcoin community have been mistaken into believing that open-port-nodes are that matters.
Myth: This number of nodes matters and/or is too low.
Nodes with open ports are useful to the bitcoin network because they help bootstrap new nodes by uploading historical blocks, they are a measure of bandwidth capacity. Right now there is no shortage of bandwidth capacity, and if there was it could be easily added by renting cloud servers.
The problem is not bandwidth or connections, but trust, security and privacy. Let me explain.
Full nodes are able to check that all of bitcoin's rules are being followed. Rules like following the inflation schedule, no double spending, no spending of coins that don't belong to the holder of the private key and all the other rules required to make bitcoin work (e.g. difficulty)
Full nodes are what make bitcoin trustless. No longer do you have to trust a financial institution like a bank or paypal, you can simply run software on your own computer. To put simply, the only node that matters is the one you use
Myth: There is no incentive to run nodes, the network relies on altruism
It is very much in the individual bitcoin's users rational self interest to run a full node and use it as their wallet.
Using a full node as your wallet is the only way to know for sure that none of bitcoin's rules have been broken. Rules like no coins were spent not belonging to the owner, that no coins were spent twice, that no inflation happens outside of the schedule and that all the rules needed to make the system work are followed (e.g. difficulty.) All other kinds of wallet involve trusting a third party server.
All these checks done by full nodes also increase the security. There are many attacks possible against lightweight wallets that do not affect full node wallets.
This is not just mindless paranoia, there have been real world examples where full node users were unaffected by turmoil in the rest of the bitcoin ecosystem. The 4th July 2015 accidental chain fork effected many kinds of wallets. Here is the wiki page on this event https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/July_2015_chain_forks#Wallet_Advice
Notice how updated node software was completely unaffected by the fork. All other wallets required either extra confirmations or checking that the third-party institution was running the correct version.
Full nodes wallets are also currently the most private way to use Bitcoin, with nobody else learning which bitcoin addresses belong to you. All other lightweight wallets leak information about which addresses are yours because they must query third-party servers. The Electrum servers will know which addresses belong to you and can link them together. Despite bloom filtering, lightweight wallets based on BitcoinJ do not provide much privacy against nodes who connected directly to the wallet or wiretappers.
For many use cases, such privacy may not be required. But an important reason to run a full node and use it as a wallet is to get the full privacy benefits.
Myth: I can just set up a node on a cloud server instance and leave it
To get the benefits of running a full node, you must use it as your wallet, preferably on hardware you control.
Most people who do this do not use a full node as their wallet. Unfortunately because Bitcoin has a similar name to Bittorrent, some people believe that upload capacity is the most important thing for a healthy network. As I've explained above: bandwidth and connections are not a problem today, trust, security and privacy are.
Myth: Running a full node is not recommended, most people should use a lightweight client
This was common advice in 2012, but since then the full node software has vastly improved in terms of user experience.
If you cannot spare the disk space to store the blockchain, you can enable pruning. In Bitcoin Core 0.12, pruning being enabled will leave the wallet enabled. Altogether this should require less than 900MB of hard disk space.
If you cannot spare the bandwidth to upload blocks to other nodes, there are number of options to reduce or eliminate the bandwidth requirement. These include limiting connections, bandwidth targetting and disabling listening. Bitcoin Core 0.12 has the new option -blocksonly, where the node will not download unconfirmed transaction and only download new blocks. This more than halves the bandwidth usage at the expense of not seeing unconfirmed transactions.
Synchronizing the blockchain for a new node has improved since 2012 too. Features like headers-first and libsecp256k1 have greatly improved the initial synchronization time.
It can be further improved by setting -dbcache=3000 which keeps more of the UTXO set in memory. It reduces the amount of time reading from disk and therefore speeds up synchronization. Tests showed that the entire blockchain can now be synchronized in less than 3 and a half hours (Note that you'll need Bitcoin Core 0.12 or later to get all these efficiency improvements) Another example with 2h 25m
How to run a full node as your wallet.
I think every moderate user of bitcoin would benefit by running a full node and using it as their wallet. There are several ways to do this.
So what are you waiting for? The benefits are many, the downsides are not that bad. The more people do this, the more robust and healthy the bitcoin ecosystem is.
Further reading: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

OP_BRIBEVERIFY (OP_CHECKMERGEMINEVERIFY) and OP_CHECKWORKSCOREVERIFY violations of the principle of Script purity

I encountered the principle of Script purity from a line by gmax on the bitcoin-wizards IRC: https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2017-10-02/?msg=91796076&page=1
gmaxwell: ugh, please. don't propose things inside script that aren't pure functions of the transactions; thats recreating the ethereum non-scalablity disaster.
Or in other words, new script OP_ codes should check things that exist only on the stack, or the transaction it is executing in.
OP_BRIBEVERIFY, to my understanding, requires checking of the block it executes inside of, not the transaction.
(as a complete aside, can we rename this to OP_CHECKMERGEMINEVERIFY, simply because this is more accurate description of what it does? Every transaction offers a bribe to the miner, after all.)
Further, also OP_CHECKWORKSCOREVERIFY consults the minerDB, which again is not in the transaction it is executed inside of.
It thus seems likely that the drivechain designs using these may be rejected based on this principle (possibly).
Later in the IRC luke-jr proposes a workaround for this principle, where the CTransaction class has hidden fields (that are not serialized) and the opcode only fills in the hidden fields. Then transaction validation code is extended to perform this additional checking instead of the actual SCRIPT execution.
submitted by ZmnSCPxj to Drivechains [link] [comments]

Core Developer threaten to ban TomZander for informing people about hard forks in #bitcoin on Freenode.

17:44 < TZander> For instance, after we increased the block size than means a small portion of the network is no longer seeing the real Bitcoin as valid. But they just need to upgrade to a new client.
17:46 < luke-jr> TZander: lolwut. PoW doesn't indicate popularity at all at this point.
17:48 < JackH> why are you lying TZander ?
17:48 < TZander> I'm wondering, do you guys have a notify on my nick? Its always the blockstream PR manager (brg444) that comes out when I counter some FUD here ;)
18:05 < TZander> ajunas: It will happen when the miners have a good date picked. Which I'm sure they will make very public. So just keep your eyes open on news and make sure you run a compatible client. But most wallets don't need upgrading, so it will be Ok.
18:06 <@ wumpus> yes, if you keep discussing altcoins you'll be kicked from this channel
18:07 < TZander> can you point out where I did?
18:07 <@ wumpus> "make sure you run a compatible client" isnt that clear enough?
18:08 <@ wumpus> you can word it whatever way you want, you won't trick or weasel us here
18:08 <@ wumpus> so back down please
18:11 <@ wumpus> because you are promoting a contentious fork, whose supporters are already causing enough FUD and trouble. Just not here.
18:11 <@ wumpus> if you keep that up, you will be banned from the channel, that's all I want to say about it
submitted by MagmaHindenburg to btc [link] [comments]

John Newbery will host a Bitcoin PR review club on Freenode IRC channel #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews

John Newbery will host a Bitcoin PR review club on Freenode IRC channel #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews submitted by myquidproquo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Could Fortress be the one acquisitioning Mtgox? A full log.

On the 20th of February I posed as MagicalTux when he quit. I quickly changed back after a few seconds and got this private message some hours later on my bnc while away. I replied when I came back online and this was the conversation:
❯ cat freenode_bitinstant_20140221.log [02:28:44]  Hey [02:28:57]  My buddy and investor Peter [02:29:02]  Psmith [02:29:07]  sent you an IRC query [02:29:10]  Hes legit [02:29:14]  if you need liquidity [02:29:23]  He wants to wire you asap [17:28:12]  cool [17:28:12]  ok [17:28:14]  thanks [17:28:18]  wire me up [17:31:06]  Hey [17:31:13]  We need to talk about something totally different [17:31:33]  gonna make coffee 1 sec [17:31:53]  I need to confirm you are Mark [17:32:29]  If you are Mark, what did I offer to ship you from NY to tookyo that you love from Israel ? [17:38:37]  ? [17:42:10]  cigars ofcourse! [17:42:26]  No way [17:42:29]  (im not Mark) [17:42:29]  Mark does not even smoke [17:42:32]  Your a hacker [17:42:42]  no I'm not [17:42:46]  Who are you? [17:43:00]  this is my registered nick 
This was on the 21st of February and, while I could have handled it better (I was really surprised..), there is some information to take away. Besides that we won't see Mark die from lung cancer any time soon, psmith is interesting.
What if psmith is actually Peter Smith from Fortress: http://www.fortress.com/AboutFortress/Leadership/ManagementCommittee.aspx?id=31
And Fortress was or is the one that might be acquisitioning MtGox?
Also bitinstant is apparently the identified nick for Charlie Shrem
Edit: Added evidence from log
freenode_#bitcoin-tradetalk_20140220.log:[19:31:26] *** shadylog is now known as MagicalTux freenode_#bitcoin-tradetalk_20140220.log:[19:31:34]  /kill MagicalTux freenode_#bitcoin-tradetalk_20140220.log:[19:31:35] *** MagicalTux is now known as shadylog freenode_#bitcoin-tradetalk_20140220.log:[19:32:39]  ./nick MagicalTux 
Also:
freenode_##mtgox-chat_20140225.log:[14:27:56]  !seen MagicalTux freenode_##mtgox-chat_20140225.log:[14:27:56]  MagicalTux (*!*[email protected]) changed his nick for shadylog , 4days 18hrs 56mins 21secs ago. 
submitted by shadyl to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BIP proposal - Dandelion: Privacy Preserving Transaction Propagation | Andrew Miller | Jun 12 2017

Andrew Miller on Jun 12 2017:
Dear bitcoin-dev,
We've put together a preliminary implementation and BIP for
Dandelion, and would love to get your feedback on it. Dandelion is a
privacy-enhancing modification to Bitcoin's transaction propagation
mechanism. Its goal is to obscure the original source IP of each
transaction.
https://github.com/gfanti/bips/blob/mastebip-dandelion.mediawiki
https://github.com/gfanti/bitcoin/tree/dandelion
The main idea is that transaction propagation proceeds in two
phases: first the “stem” phase, and then “fluff” phase. During the
stem phase, each node relays the transaction to a single peer. After
a random number of hops along the stem, the transaction enters the
fluff phase, which behaves just like ordinary transaction
flooding/diffusion. Even when an attacker can identify the location of
the fluff phase, it is much more difficult to identify the source of
the stem. Our approach and some preliminary evaluation are explained
in more detail in the BIP. The research paper originally introducing
this idea was recently presented at SIGMETRICS'17.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.04439.pdf
Compared to the original paper, our current proposal includes
several new design ideas, especially:
actively tries to learn which nodes were involved in the stem phase.
Our approach is called "Mempool Embargo", meaning a node that receives
a "stem phase" transaction behaves as though it never heard of it,
until it receives it again from someone else (or until a random timer
elapses).
expense of propagation quality. Our implementation is designed so that
if some node drops the transaction (or when Dandelion is adopted only
partially), then the fallback behavior is ordinary Bitcoin
propagation.
We'd especially like feedback on the implementation details related
to the two points above. The mempool embargo mechanism is tricky,
since it hard to rule out indirect behavior that reveals if a
transaction is in mempool. In the BIP we explain one counterexample,
but at least it requires the attacker to get its connections banned.
Are there other ways we haven't thought of? We think the alternative
approach (bypassing mempool entirely) seems even harder to get right,
and foregoes existing DoS protection.
We're currently running in-situ benchmark experiments with this code
on testnet and will report on those in this thread if there's
interest.
Some prior discussion can be found here:
from gmaxwell that we've mostly incorporated in the current proposal)
Thanks!
Giulia Fanti
Andrew Miller
Surya Bakshi
Shaileshh Bojja Venkatakrishnan
Pramod Viswanath
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014571.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Bitcoin Core Dev weekly meeting has started, join to see what's being planned and discussed

The following post by temp_bitcoin_throw is being replicated because the post has been silently greylisted(for 1.6 hours).
(It was approved by the mods at: 2017-12-22T01:21:47.000Z)
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7lbroq
The original post's content was as follows:
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

segwit after a 2MB hardfork

Disclaimer: My preferred plan for bitcoin is soft-forking segregated witness in asap, and scheduling a 2MB hardforked blocksize increase sometime mid-2017, and I think doing a 2MB hardfork anytime soon is pretty crazy. Also, I like micropayments, and until I learnt about the lightning network proposal, bitcoin didn't really interest me because a couple of cents in fees is way too expensive, and a few minutes is way too slow. Maybe that's enough to make everything I say uninteresting to you, dear reader, in which case I hope this disclaimer has saved you some time. :)
Anyway there's now a good explanation of what segwit does beyond increasing the blocksize via accounting tricks or however you want to call it: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ [0] I'm hopeful that makes it a bit easier to see why many people are more excited by segwit than a 2MB hardfork. In any event hopefully it's easy to see why it might be a good idea to do segwit asap, even if you do a hardfork to double the blocksize first.
If you were to do a 2MB hardfork first, and then apply segwit on top of that [1], I think there are a number of changes you'd want to consider, rather than just doing a straight merge. Number one is that with the 75% discount for witness data and a 2MB blocksize, you run the risk of worst-case 8MB blocks which seems to be too large at present [2]. The obvious solution is to change the discount rate, or limit witness data by some other mechanism. The drawback is that this removes some of the benefits of segwit in reducing UTXO growth and in moving to a simpler cost formula. Not hard, but it's a tradeoff, and exactly what to do isn't obvious (to me, anyway).
If IBLT or weak blocks or an improved relay network or something similar comes out after deploying segwit, does it then make sense to increase the discount or otherwise raise the limit on witness data, and is it possible to do this without another hardfork and corresponding forced upgrade? For the core roadmap, I think the answer would be "do segwit as a soft-fork now so no one has to upgrade, and after IBLT/etc is ready perhaps do a hard-fork then because it will be safer" so there's only one forced upgrade for users. Is some similar plan possible if there's an "immediate" hard fork to increase the block size, to avoid users getting hit with two hardforks in quick succession?
Number two is how to deal with sighashes -- segwit allows the hash calculation to be changed, so that for 2MB of transaction data (including witness data), you only need to hash up to around 4MB of data when verifying signatures, rather than potentially gigabytes of data. Compare that to Gavin's commits to the 0.11.2 branch in Classic which include a 1.3GB limit on sighash data to make the 2MB blocksize -- which is necessary because the quadratic scaling problem means that the 1.3GB limit can already be hit with 1MB blocks. Do you keep the new limit once you've got 2MB+segwit, or plan to phase it out as more transactions switch to segwit, or something else?
Again, I think with the core roadmap the plan here is straightforward -- do segwit now, get as many wallets/transactions switched over to segwit asap (whether due to all the bonus features, or just that they're cheaper in fees), and then revise the sighash limits later as part of soft-forking to increase the blocksize.
Finally, and I'm probably projecting my own ideas here, I think a 2MB hardfork in 2017 would give ample opportunity to simultaneously switch to a "validation cost metric" approach, making fees simpler to calculate and avoiding people being able to make sigop attacks to force near-empty blocks and other such nonsense. I think there's even the possibility of changing the limit so that in future it can be increased by soft-forks [3], instead of needing a hard fork for increases as it does now. ie, I think if we're clever, we can get a gradual increase to 1.8MB-2MB starting in the next few months via segwit with a soft-fork, then have a single hard-fork flag day next year, that allows the blocksize to be managed in a forwards compatible way more or less indefinitely.
Anyhoo, I'd love to see more technical discussion of classic vs core, so in the spirit of "write what you want to read", voila...
[0] I wrote most of the text for that, though the content has had a lot of corrections from people who understand how it works better than I do; see the github pull request if you care --https://github.com/bitcoin-core/website/pull/67
[1] https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/42mequ/jtoomim_192616_utc_my_plan_for_segwit_was_to_pull/
[2] I've done no research myself; jtoomim's talk at Hong Kong said 2MB/4MB seemed okay but 8MB/9MB was "pushing it" -- http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/bip101-block-propagation-data-from-testnet/ and his talks with miners indicated that BIP101's 8MB blocks were "Too much too fast" https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cg9Qo9Vl5PdJYD4EiHnIGMV3G48pWmcWI3NFoKKfIzU/edit#gid=0 Tradeblock's stats also seem to suggest 8MB blocks is probably problematic for now: https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-6-data-propagation
[3] https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2015-12-09/?msg=55794797&page=4
submitted by ajtowns to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Options trading sites?

what sites have bitcoin options?
I remember seeing options on some betting site, and on freenode #bitcoin-otc order book
what is that betting site, and what other sites do options?
submitted by opticbit to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Reason #58532 never to use web wallets

The following post by luke-jr is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/70lsxm
The original post's content was as follows:
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2017-09-17/?msg=91204771&page=1
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

I find Bitcoin user's routine reference to AltCoins as "Scam Coins" to be rude, hateful, and coincist.

Being a user of multiple coin types, I find Bitcoin user's routine reference to AltCoins as "Scam Coins" to be rude, hateful, and coincist.
I find this reference to be routine. The term is common in comments. I see the term used in the Freenode #bitcoin-mining channel's topic.
As a society, I'd like to think we are moving past belittling and hating those are different. All coins are not created equal, but all AltCoins aren't ScamCoins.
I think Bitcoin needs and benefits from AltCoins. Seriously, Bitcoin needs some changes to continue going mainstream in the long run (think of massive block sync times and the such). Other coins have addressed some of the shortcomings of Bitcoin and could be better in some way. It is interesting to see what works and what doesn't work in AltCoins.
Respecting other coins and people who use them is as easy as doing what you should already be doing: Respecting others always.
Thanks for reading.
submitted by SoCo_cpp to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

/r/oBitcoin FAQ - Novatos por favor leiam

Bem vindo ao /oBitcoin FAQ fixada

O texto que se encontra aqui foi desenvolvido por Mtzrkov e outros em Github.com/btcbrdev/oBitcoin e está em domínio público para ser usado livremente por qualquer um.

O que é bitcoin?

Bitcoin (BTC ou XBT) é o primeiro e mais importante dinheiro eletrônico sem autoridade central, baseado numa tecnologia open-source inédita chamada Blockchain, que foi desenvolvida por Satoshi Nakamoto em janeiro de 2009. Essa tecnologia permite a criação de um "banco de dados" confiável P2P (ponto-a-ponto), o que abre caminho para muitos tipos de inovação, sendo uma delas o próprio bitcoin e outras como contratos descentralizados, por exemplo.
Nota: normalmente emprega-se "Bitcoin" em maiúsculo para se referir ao protocolo (baseado na tecnologia Blockchain) e em minúsculo "bitcoin" para se referir a uma unidade da moeda.
O Bitcoin, além de um bem digital, pode ser considerado também um sistema de pagamento, totalmente independente de qualquer sistema já existente, como cartões de crédito, Paypal, bancos e outros. Sua capacidade atual estimada é de 7 transações por segundo, mas essa capacidade pode ser aumentada com o passar do tempo se houver necessidade. Por ser puramente digital e distribuído, o Bitcoin funciona 24/7 e tem alcance mundial, além de ter locais especializados de troca pela moeda local (chamados exchange) nas principais cidades do mundo.
A segurança da rede do Bitcoin, ou seja, o que garante que não existirá um chamado "gasto duplo" do mesmo dinheiro, é o consenso da rede P2P feito pela validação das transações por parte dos mineradores. Para que um minerador consiga incluir um bloco válido na rede, ele precisa utilizar um grande poder computacional. O processo de mineração consiste na realização de cálculos matemáticos para a seleção de quais transações válidas serão incluídas no próximo novo bloco do Blockchain, excluindo aquelas que tiveram uma tentativa de "gasto duplo" naquele período. Cada nó da rede, além dos mineradores, também é capaz de verificar a validade das transações incluídas no bloco. É nesse processo também que aparecem os "bitcoins ainda não descobertos". A distribuição dos bitcoins é feita de forma previsível, tendo uma queda de recompensa pela metade de 4 em 4 anos. Serão encontrados no máximo 21 milhões de unidades da moeda.

Quanto vale um bitcoin?

O preço de mercado de um bitcoin é determinado através da lei da oferta e da procura, portanto estando sujeito a variações de preço por causa de acontecimentos políticos e econômicos (como desvalorização e inflação de moedas estatais, conflitos, maior demanda por Bitcoin etc).
Assim como nas moedas estatais, o preço do bitcoin varia e pode ser diferente dependendo do lugar em que for negociado.
Se você for comprar dólares no Brasil, você terá que procurar uma casa de câmbio que poderá ter a cotação de R$ 3,00 por dólar, por exemplo. Caso vá a outra casa de câmbio, você poderá notar que o preço poderá ser ligeiramente diferente, além das taxas também variarem. Com o Bitcoin não é diferente. Essa variação entre as exchanges (nome comumente usado para se refererir aos locais de compra e venda de bitcoin) são equilibradas pelo mercado através de operações de arbitragem (comprar num lugar mais barato e vender num mais caro).
Para se ter uma ideia do preço médio do bitcoin, você pode dar uma olhada em sites como os que seguem:
Para um gráfico do preço ao longo do tempo, acesse:

Volatilidade

Por ser uma moeda ainda muito recente (inventada em jan/2009) e ainda não muito utilizada, seu preço de mercado ainda é muito volátil. Isso faz do bitcoin um investimento de risco atualmente. O preço tende a ficar mais estável ao longo do tempo, quando o mercado puder definir com mais exatidão seu "preço real". As oscilações também tendem a diminuir conforme o seu market cap (quantidade de moedas x preço) aumentar. Hoje (2015) o market cap do bitcoin é de US$ 3 bi, o que pode ser considerado pouco se comparado ao valor de algumas empresas como a Dell (US$ 24 bi) ou ainda de outras commodities como o ouro (US$ 2.600 bi).
Para um gráfico da volatidade ao longo do tempo, acesse:

Como obter bitcoins?

O bitcoin é um bem digital e assim como outros bens, pode ser adquirido de diversas formas:

1. Negociação direta (P2P / pessoa a pessoa)

Uma das maneiras mais baratas de se negociar bitcoins, porque não tem taxas, é comprando diretamente de outras pessoas que já possuem a moeda. As duas partes chegam a um acordo de preço e a troca é feita. Geralmente quem tem menos reputação entrega o bitcoin ou a moeda local primeiro.
Por ser uma maneira relativamente arriscada, pois não há um mediador para casos de descumprimento de uma das partes, a reputação de alguém deve ser muito considerada. Exemplo: prefira negociar com alguém do seu círculo de amizades (rede de confiança), alguém que você confie muito como familiares e amigos, ou por uma indicação (amigo de amigo). Se a outra parte tem uma reputação duvidosa, prefira negociar aos poucos (divida os valores em várias partes menores e vá trocando aos poucos).
Algumas ferramentas auxiliam nesse processo de reputação e rede de confiança, sendo elas:

2. Negociação indireta (com intermediário)

Outra forma de se negociar bitcoins (e essa provavelmente é a maneira mais conveniente, embora não seja a mais barata) é utilizando um intermediário que viabilize a compra e venda de bitcoins entre pessoas interessadas. Esses intermediários são as "corretoras" ou "bolsas" de bitcoins (mais conhecidas por exchanges).
Essas corretoras fornecem um serviço de intermediação entre compradores e vendedores de bitcoin, cobrando uma taxa para tal. Por causa disso o bitcoin nas corretoras tem um preço final um pouco mais alto do que se fosse comprar de outras maneiras, mas devido ao altíssimo volume, uma operação pode ser realizada instantaneamente.
Além de usar exchanges, você também pode encontrar um intermediário na relação P2P, tornando-a mais segura. Exemplo: um amigo em comum, que pode levar uma comissão previamente combinada para intermediar as duas partes.
Você pode conferir uma lista de corretoras no ExchangeWar. Algumas das principais corretoras brasileiras são:

Onde gastar bitcoins?

Hoje é virtualmente possível gastar os bitcoins em qualquer lugar, usando algum intermediário para trocá-los imediatamente sob demanda por alguma moeda local, como numa exchange ou com serviços como Neteller, Xapo ou Gyft.
Alguns locais porém já aceitam a moeda digital diretamente, como é o caso da Microsoft, Dell e Overstock, além de inúmeras outras ao redor do mundo.
Confira uma lista com mais de 100 mil lugares que já aceitam diretamente o bitcoin em SpendBitcoins ou no CoinMap.
Segue algumas listas de locais que aceitam bitcoin no Brasil:

Como minerar bitcoins?

Para minerar bitcoins você precisa executar um software em um computador especializado (ASIC) que possa realizar uma grande quantidade de operações matemáticas demandada pelo sistema de consenso P2P do bitcoin.
Logo após a criação do Bitcoin em 2009, era possível e rentável minerar bitcoins utilizando o processamento de computadores pessoais (através de simples processadores e placas de vídeo), mas com o tempo essa atividade deixou de ser rentável e tornou-se praticamente impossível para tais máquinas. Isso aconteceu pois o interesse no Bitcoin aumentou muito, trazendo assim mais pessoas para a mineração e impulsionando uma corrida por maior quantidade de processamento. Com o avanço da tecnologia e o aumento do interesse por Bitcoin, mais poder de processamento foi adicionado à rede Bitcoin e isso resultou em um aumento da dificuldade para se encontrar novos Blocos.
Essa é uma característica do protocolo Bitcoin: quanto maior o poder de processamento da rede, maior a dificuldade para se minerar bitcoins - ou seja, maior a dificuldade para se descobrir novos Blocos. Um bloco é um arquivo que possui uma identificação (data, hora e informações genéricas) e um registro das transações (movimentação de bitcoins entre endereços) mais recentes. Resumidamente, os mineradores são uma forma de manter a rede Bitcoin segura e operante, algo que demanda muito poder de processamento (o que torna inviável o uso computadores de propósito geral para tal fim) e que, como retribuição por essa tarefa importante, gera uma recompensa em bitcoins pelo trabalho.
Todas as transações, ou seja, as movimentações em bitcoins realizadas entre endereços (carteiras), são anônimas pois se caracterizam como uma transferência de fundos de um endereço Bitcoin para outro, que, embora tenham relação indireta com pessoas reais, não possuem uma relação direta. Ou seja, não é possível dizer com absoluta certeza que determinada pessoa é detentora de um endereço a menos que ela diga isso em algum lugar - o que torna o Bitcoin algo pseudônimo, não anônimo (você é anônimo apenas se quiser e tiver conhecimentos para tal). Todas as transações da história da rede Bitcoin são públicas e podem ser conferidas em sites como o Blockchain Info.
Então...é impossível minerar hoje em dia num PC comum ou notebook? Sim, mas não é lucrativo. Para isso existem os ASICs (Circuitos Integrados de Aplicação Específica, em inglês Application Specific Integrated Circuits), hardwares específicos para mineração. Há uma lista na Bitcoin Wiki, em inglês, onde estão listados todos os ASICs disponíveis no mercado e também placas gráficas e processadores. É importante notar que embora seja possível minerar bitcoins, não é algo recomendado aos brasileiros, uma vez que o equipamento é caro, importado e possui taxas de importação - além da energia elétrica brasileira, que inviabiliza totalmente o processo.
Nota: Em processo de desenvolvimento: Guardando seus bitcoins e Ganhando bitcoins.

Unidades comuns do bitcoin

Unidade Abreviação Quantidade em bitcoin Uso Nome alternativo
Bitcoin BTC 1,00000000 Unidade básica, usada no client padrão. XBT
millibit mBTC 0,00100000 Padrão em diversos serviços. -
bit μBTC 0,00000100 Possível novo padrão a ser adotado. microbit
Satoshi - 0.00000001 Frequentemente usado para negociar altcoins, menor unidade possível. -

Comunidade brasileira

submitted by felipelalli to oBitcoin [link] [comments]

[ANN] Uncensored Bitcoin IRC channel: #bitcoinchat on irc.freenode.net:6667

Jihan Wu had a great idea to sponsor the promotion of an uncensored Bitcoin communications channel. To be clear, I am not asking for any money. If he wants to spend his money promoting it, he can definitely do that, but I would prefer to be left out of it those decisions.
I have registered an IRC channel for uncensored Bitcoin discussion:
#bitcoinchat on irc.freenode.net:6667
The operators of the chatroom have no affiliation with Bitcoin development. They only have an interest a laissez faire approach to open and uncensored Bitcoin communication.
IRC on your IRC Client
IRC in your Browser
To be clear, this is an uncensored chatroom. This means that there are no protections against spamming, scams, points of view, etc. Therefore, if any particular IRC user does not like anything that is being said by another person, he is encouraged to set his own IRC software to ignore that person.
Hope you guys enjoy!
submitted by ugtarmas to btc [link] [comments]

[UPDATE] Uncensored Bitcoin IRC channel now has 50 users and won't be shut down: #bitcoinchat on irc.freenode.net:6667

A few day ago, I announced a new uncensored Bitcoin IRC channel. Today, I am happy to report that we now have 50 users after just three days.
I would also like to thank the team at Bitcoin.com for listing this channel on https://irc.bitcoin.com/
This was an incredibly important step, because Freenode suggests that channels be associated with a project: https://freenode.net/policies
"Channels on freenode fall into one of two categories. Primary channels, which begin with a single # character, are reserved for on-topic projects. If you’d like to take over one of these channels, then you’ll need to be associated in some way with the project in question."
I have noticed that some people have drawn attention to this, and was worried about some bad actors mis-informing Freenode and trying to get this uncensored channel shut down. Happy to report that this is no longer a risk!
IRC on your IRC Client
IRC in your Browser
submitted by ugtarmas to btc [link] [comments]

RGB Technical Internals, Part I Adding a coin like vertcoin to your portfolio Scaling Bitcoin 2016 Milan - Day 1 - Morning - YouTube Secure your bitcoins and altcoins TIGER'S ALTCOIN NEWS #4 EVERGREENCOIN AN EVNIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CURRENCY

Most Bitcoin Core related discussion happens in the #bitcoin-core-dev IRC channel on irc.freenode.net or bitcoin-core-dev mailing list. There is also a mailing list for Bitcoin protocol discussion bitcoin-dev and a general Bitcoin discussion bitcoin-discuss. Contribute to this website. You can also translate or contribute to this website. Search Bitcoin in the channels list of IRC network freenode and get informed about freenode's users and topics! Current Chat Rooms: bitcoin, bitcoin-core-dev, bitcoin-pricetalk, bitcoin-otc, bitcoinsoftware, electrum, talos-workstation, lightning-dev, bitcoin-dev, bitcoin-core-pr-reviews October 17th #bitcoin-otc trade channel appears on IRC freenode. October 28th First short trade transaction: 100 coins between users nanotube and kiba on #bitcoin-otc. November 6th Bitcoin share capital reaches 1 million USD. #bitcoin-news freenode - Bitcoin Chat. This is a small report about chat room #bitcoin-news, a so called IRC channel on network freenode.This report usually includes user statistics and chat topics of the last days and weeks, if the IRC channel was already registered and its administrators didn't set its channel modes to private or secret. During the Easter weekend (April 12th to 15th) we will be purging the freenode services database. We periodically prune the database to remove expired accounts, nicknames and channels. Just like previous database purges we will be removing any accounts and nicknames that have not been used for 120 days at the time of the purge.

[index] [6241] [6037] [186] [19276] [5696] [33796] [25770] [7358] [24561] [9906]

RGB Technical Internals, Part I

3. Overview of P2P & RPC need for the Bitcoin ecosystem. 4. Single-use-seal brief definition. 5. RGB/Bitcoin multidimentional relations. 6. Paradigms present in Bitcoin and leveraged and extended ... ★25 statistical charts and stats about the bitcoin blockchain! ★Compare Volume and Price between different Bitcoin markets! ★Chat with other traders on IRC Freenode #bitcoin -analysis channel! See https://scalingbitcoin.org/presentations for presentation index and transcripts. Fiend me on IRC freenode #thebestcoins, #crypto_nl, #bitcoin, #bitcoin-nl ... Learn how to buy and send a bitcoin via the Altcoin Trader platform - Duration: 9:42. Rads ACT 77,753 views. NEWS ON EVERGREENCOIN AND THE STRATOSPHERE PROJECT donations bitcoin: 16GeBN822wk7qtErExHXN1Q2gNMejLe6Z2 evergreencoin: EW4fPaGJsY3gkJCMZcgTvrKqHCbToTsWZX st...

#