Understanding the truth about #UASF and the small block movement: An attempted subversion of Bitcoin's voting system through the introduction of a One-IP-address-One-vote system, a direct violation of the POW voting mechanism described in the white paper.
The proper way to gain influence in the system of Bitcoin is to invest in it's security. The amount of influence you have in the system is directly proportional to how much you have invested into it's security. This is mostly seen with mining, where you "vote" by extending blocks. Really quickly I want to get something out of the way: There's an argument to be made that coin hodlers have a say too. Holders have the ability to change the supply/demand equilibrium by adding or removing coins from circulation, increasing or decreasing the relative value of remaining circulating coins. What should be noted here is that again, this control of the system was not gained without first making an investment into it. Now, while we have acknowledged coin hodlers have some influence in the overall value of the system, they don't necessarily "vote" the way miners do, it's a little different. We can differentiate by remembering that Coin hodlers and investors have a vote in determining the overall value of the system, while miners vote on how the system works structurally. People need to remember, Bitcoin is not a democracy, if you don't invest, you're not supposed to have any control. If it weren't this way, then anyone with an Amazon cloud instance could spin up a bunch of non-mining nodes and start governing the system with no investment into it's security! Let's go to the white paper for a second, Section 4, it says: "The proof of work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one IP address-one vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IP's. Proof of work is essentially one CPU-one vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, Which has the greatest proof of work effort invested into it." To me, this is one of the most important parts of the white paper, and one of the biggest clues about who the good and bad actors are. Let's break each sentence down so everyone can understand:
"The proof of work also solves the problem of determining representation of majority decision making."
Satoshi understood that there needs to be some type of voting mechanism within the system in order to come to consensus about changes, such as block size, for example. He explains in the above sentence, that the "voting" is determined by CPU power. So whoever has the most CPU power has the biggest vote! Likewise, No CPU power = no vote! Remember, the person who has the most CPU power, is the person who has invested the most into Bitcoin's security, that's how he GOT the CPU power. It's extremely important to note here that "CPU" at the time the white paper was written, was the appropriate term, but now "hash" power would make more sense, since a lot is not done on CPU's anymore, which Satoshi predicted. So even though he says "CPU" we can really interpret that as "hash power." So for the purpose of this paper, CPU power = Hash power. (please, in the comments, someone post a link to where Satoshi predicted GPU and specialized hardware, I don't have the link but I know it exists.) Anyway, he is very clear: you have to consume electricity and use it to generate blocks, that's how you vote. Remember, non-mining nodes don't consume much energy, don't do any hashing, can't put your transaction into a block and basically have little to no power in the system, this is by design.
"If the majority were based on one IP address-one vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IP's."
Sound familiar? Think about the non-mining nodes that have made no investment into the security of the system (since they don't extend blocks.) They are trying to subvert it by allocating many IP's, exactly like Satoshi said in the white paper! Think about it: The twitter polls, the non-mining nodes, the sockpuppet accounts, The #UASF shills, these are all examples of "IP" and NOT "CPU." It's an attempt at subversion through allocating IP addresses, NOT contributing hash power! It is clearly explained that this is NOT the way to vote in the system. A user represents "IP" where a miner represents "CPU." We can draw a clear distinction by the fact that mining requires an expenditure of energy, this is what constitutes the "proof' in "proof of work."
"Proof of work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote."
When a miner mines your transaction, he performs a "Proof of work." He says that your transaction occurred, and backs it by the energy he expended to confirm your transaction. The fact that it requires work and an expenditure of energy to solve a block is the "proof." If no block is solved, no "proof" has occurred. Understanding this is absolutely crucial to understanding how Bitcoin works and why the system has value. The "proof" that your transaction is legitimate, is the fact that a miner had to expend energy to confirm it. Miners have collectively invested Billions of dollars into securing the system. They're the ones with skin in the game. Non-mining nodes and UASF people have no skin in the game, they do not confirm blocks. Anyone can spin up a non-mining node or make a twitter account and vote in twitter polls, etc. I can't stress the importance of this enough: Simply existing does not give you the right to vote in the system of Bitcoin. If you want a vote, you need to invest. A non-mining node is not an investment into the security of the system!
The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, Which has the greatest proof of work effort invested into it.
This sentence is pretty self explanatory, he's just saying that whatever most miners agree on, is the correct rules. So if most of the CPU power agreed that blocks are 1MB forever, then blocks are 1MB forever. If most of the CPU power votes for 2MB blocks, by mining them and adding them to the longest chain, then the majority hash power has spoken. THIS is how voting in Bitcoin works. NOT by allocating IP's that don't contribute to proof of work. If you don't contribute to proof of work, you don't vote. So how does this all tie into the segwit/segwit2x deal? In the case of the BTC chain, miners, who have the vote, want to increase block size. They're going to do this regardless of what the non-mining nodes want. They are well within their rights to do so, the system is designed so that miners have ultimate control. Remember, the instant a non-mining node rejects a block from a mining node, he is forking himself off the network. This is extremely important: These people that claim to use their non-mining nodes to "enforce consensus rules" are absolute bullshitters! They're not enforcing a damn thing! They're desperately attempting to usurp control that they're NOT supposed to have! They are attempting to steal control from miners, who have actual skin in the game! A non-mining node has two choices: Follow the mining nodes, or fork off. Quite frankly, the idea of a non-mining node "enforcing consensus" on a mining node is laughable! Remember, non-mining nodes are READ ONLY, they don't enforce ANYTHING. They can either follow the mining nodes, or fork themselves off the network. SORRY, this is how it works! It's not a matter of opinion, this is the structure of Bitcoin and it's not open for debate. So, according to the voting system outlined in the white paper, who is right? The segwit2xers, or the NO2xer's? The 2xers are right, the NO2xer's are wrong. Not because of their opinion on block size, but because they insist on having a vote when they are not supposed to. The NO2xer's are, exactly as CSW said at Bitkan: "Kicking and screaming outside the voting booth." They're very loud, very verbal, using propaganda, censorship and manipulation and other underhanded tactics, in attempt to subvert Bitcoin by turning it into a "One-IP-one-vote" system when it is CLEARLY supposed to be "One-CPU-one-vote." This is not a matter of opinion, this is how the system works. So, by every measurable metric, the NO2x movement is a sybill attack on Bitcoin, an attempt to subvert the rules of the system and gain control that should not be had. Tl;DR: Miners vote on how the system works structurally by extending blocks on the chain they deem to be the legitimate one. Miners make the rules, users do not. If you want a vote in the system, you have to invest in it's security by extending blocks. If you have NOT invested in the security of the system, you are NOT supposed to have a vote. Core minions, small blockers and the UASF movement in general, is nothing but a bunch of people who have not invested into the security of the system, attempting to dictate how the system works. This is a direct violation of the voting system outlined in section 4 of the white paper and thus, by most measurable metrics, an attack on Bitcoin.
Greg Maxwell /u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream) has sent me two private messages in response to my other post today (where I said "Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream."). In response to his private messages, I am publicly posting my reply, here:
Note: Greg Maxell nullc sent me 2 short private messages criticizing me today. For whatever reason, he seems to prefer messaging me privately these days, rather than responding publicly on these forums. Without asking him for permission to publish his private messages, I do think it should be fine for me to respond to them publicly here - only quoting 3 phrases from them, namely: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity" LOL. There was nothing particularly new or revealing in his messages - just more of the same stuff we've all heard before. I have no idea why he prefers responding to me privately these days. Everything below is written by me - I haven't tried to upload his 2 PMs to me, since he didn't give permission (and I didn't ask). The only stuff below from his 2 PMs is the 3 phrases already mentioned: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity". The rest of this long wall of text is just my "open letter to Greg." TL;DR: The code that maximally uses the available hardware and infrastructure will win - and there is nothing Core/Blockstream can do to stop that. Also, things like the Berlin Wall or the Soviet Union lasted for a lot longer than people expected - but, conversely, the also got swept away a lot faster than anyone expected. The "vote" for bigger blocks is an ongoing referendum - and Classic is running on 20-25% of the network (and can and will jump up to the needed 75% very fast, when investors demand it due to the inevitable "congestion crisis") - which must be a massive worry for Greg/Adam/Austin and their backers from the Bilderberg Group. The debate will inevitably be decided in favor of bigger blocks - simply because the market demands it, and the hardware / infrastructure supports it. Hello Greg Maxwell nullc (CTO of Blockstream) - Thank you for your private messages in response to my post. I respect (most of) your work on Bitcoin, but I think you were wrong on several major points in your messages, and in your overall economic approach to Bitcoin - as I explain in greater detail below: Correcting some inappropriate terminology you used As everybody knows, Classic or Unlimited or Adaptive (all of which I did mention specifically in my post) do not support "340GB" blocks (which I did not mention in my post). It is therefore a straw-man for you to claim that big-block supporters want "340GB" blocks. Craig Wright may want that - but nobody else supports his crazy posturing and ridiculous ideas. You should know that what actual users / investors (and Satoshi) actually do want, is to let the market and the infrastructure decide on the size of actual blocks - which could be around 2 MB, or 4 MB, etc. - gradually growing in accordance with market needs and infrastructure capabilities (free from any arbitrary, artificial central planning and obstructionism on the part of Core/Blockstream, and its investors - many of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the current debt-backed fiat system). You yourself (nullc) once said somewhere that bigger blocks would probably be fine - ie, they would not pose a decentralization risk. (I can't find the link now - maybe I'll have time to look for it later.) I found the link: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/ I am also surprised that you now seem to be among those making unfounded insinuations that posters such as myself must somehow be "paid off" - as if intelligent observers and participants could not decide on their own, based on the empirical evidence, that bigger blocks are needed, when the network is obviously becoming congested and additional infrastructure is obviously available. Random posters on Reddit might say and believe such conspiratorial nonsense - but I had always thought that you, given your intellectual abilities, would have been able to determine that people like me are able to arrive at supporting bigger blocks quite entirely on our own, based on two simple empirical facts, ie:
the infrastructure supports bigger blocks now;
the market needs bigger blocks now.
In the present case, I will simply assume that you might be having a bad day, for you to erroneously and groundlessly insinuate that I must be "paid off" in order to support bigger blocks. Using Occam's Razor The much simpler explanation is that bigger-block supporters believe will get "paid off" from bigger gains for their investment in Bitcoin. Rational investors and users understand that bigger blocks are necessary, based on the apparent correlation (not necessarily causation!) between volume and price (as mentioned in my other post, and backed up with graphs). And rational network capacity planners (a group which you should be in - but for some mysterious reason, you're not) also understand that bigger blocks are necessary, and quite feasible (and do not pose any undue "centralization risk".) As I have been on the record for months publicly stating, I understand that bigger blocks are necessary based on the following two objective, rational reasons:
because I've seen the empirical research in the field (from guys like Gavin and Toomim) showing that the network infrastructure (primarily bandwidth and latency - but also RAM and CPU) would also support bigger blocks now (I believe they showed that 3-4MB blocks would definitely work fine on the network now - possibly even 8 MB - without causing undue centralization).
Bigger-block supporters are being objective; smaller-block supporters are not I am surprised that you no longer talk about this debate in those kind of objective terms:
bandwidth, latency (including Great Firewall of China), RAM, CPU;
At this point, the burden is on guys like you (nullc) to explain why you support a so-called scaling "roadmap" which is not aligned with:
simple, rational investment policy; and
simple, rational capacity planning
The burden is also on guys like you to show that you do not have a conflict of interest, due to Blockstream's highly-publicized connections (via insurance giant AXA - whose CED is also the Chairman of the Bilderberg Group; and companies such as the "Big 4" accounting firm PwC) to the global cartel of debt-based central banks with their infinite money-printing. In a nutshell, the argument of big-block supporters is simple: If the hardware / network infrastructure supports bigger blocks (and it does), and if the market demands it (and it does), then we certainly should use bigger blocks - now. You have never provided a counter-argument to this simple, rational proposition - for the past few years. If you have actual numbers or evidence or facts or even legitimate concerns (regarding "centralization risk" - presumably your only argument) then you should show such evidence. But you never have. So we can only assume either incompetence or malfeasance on your part. As I have also publicly and privately stated to you many times, with the utmost of sincerity: We do of course appreciate the wealth of stellar coding skills which you bring to Bitcoin's cryptographic and networking aspects. But we do not appreciate the obstructionism and centralization which you also bring to Bitcoin's economic and scaling aspects. Bitcoin is bigger than you. The simple reality is this: If you can't / won't let Bitcoin grow naturally, then the market is going to eventually route around you, and billions (eventually trillions) of investor capital and user payments will naturally flow elsewhere. So: You can either be the guy who wrote the software to provide simple and safe Bitcoin scaling (while maintaining "reasonable" decentralization) - or the guy who didn't. The choice is yours. The market, and history, don't really care about:
whether you yourself might have been "paid off" (or under a non-disclosure agreement written perhaps by some investors associated the Bilderberg Group and the legacy debt-based fiat money system which they support), or
whether or not you might be clueless about economics.
Crypto and/or Bitcoin will move on - with or without you and your obstructionism. Bigger-block supporters, including myself, are impartial By the way, my two recent posts this past week on the Craig Wright extravaganza...
...should have given you some indication that I am being impartial and objective, and I do have "integrity" (and I am not "paid off" by anybody, as you so insultingly insinuated). In other words, much like the market and investors, I don't care who provides bigger blocks - whether it would be Core/Blockstream, or Bitcoin Classic, or (the perhaps confusingly-named) "Bitcoin Unlimited" (which isn't necessarily about some kind of "unlimited" blocksize, but rather simply about liberating users and miners from being "limited" by controls imposed by any centralized group of developers, such as Core/Blockstream and the Bilderbergers who fund you). So, it should be clear by now I don't care one way or the other about Gavin personally - or about you, or about any other coders. I care about code, and arguments - regardless of who is providing such things - eg:
When Gavin didn't demand crypto proof from Craig, and you said you would have: I publicly criticized Gavin - and I supported you.
When you continue to impose needless obstactles to bigger blocks, then I continue to criticize you.
In other words, as we all know, it's not about the people. It's about the code - and what the market wants, and what the infrastructure will bear. You of all people should know that that's how these things should be decided. Fortunately, we can take what we need, and throw away the rest. Your crypto/networking expertise is appreciated; your dictating of economic parameters is not. As I have also repeatedly stated in the past, I pretty much support everything coming from you, nullc:
your crypto and networking and game-theoretical expertise,
your extremely important work on Confidential Transactions / homomorphic encryption.
your desire to keep Bitcoin decentralized.
And I (and the network, and the market/investors) will always thank you profusely and quite sincerely for these massive contributions which you make. But open-source code is (fortunately) à la carte. It's mix-and-match. We can use your crypto and networking code (which is great) - and we can reject your cripple-code (artificially small 1 MB blocks), throwing it where it belongs: in the garbage heap of history. So I hope you see that I am being rational and objective about what I support (the code) - and that I am also always neutral and impartial regarding who may (or may not) provide it. And by the way: Bitcoin is actually not as complicated as certain people make it out to be. This is another point which might be lost on certain people, including:
And that point is this: The crypto code behind Bitcoin actually is very simple. And the networking code behind Bitcoin is actually also fairly simple as well. Right now you may be feeling rather important and special, because you're part of the first wave of development of cryptocurrencies. But if the cryptocurrency which you're coding (Core/Blockstream's version of Bitcoin, as funded by the Bilderberg Group) fails to deliver what investors want, then investors will dump you so fast your head will spin. Investors care about money, not code. So bigger blocks will eventually, inevitably come - simply because the market demand is there, and the infrastructure capacity is there. It might be nice if bigger blocks would come from Core/Blockstream. But who knows - it might actually be nicer (in terms of anti-fragility and decentralization of development) if bigger blocks were to come from someone other than Core/Blockstream. So I'm really not begging you - I'm warning you, for your own benefit (your reputation and place in history), that: Either way, we are going to get bigger blocks. Simply because the market wants them, and the hardware / infrastructre can provide them. And there is nothing you can do to stop us. So the market will inevitably adopt bigger blocks either with or without you guys - given that the crypto and networking tech behind Bitcoin is not all that complex, and it's open-source, and there is massive pent-up investor demand for cryptocurrency - to the tune of multiple billions (or eventually trillions) of dollars. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Regarding the "success" which certain small-block supports are (prematurely) gloating about, during this time when a hard-fork has not happened yet: they should bear in mind that the market has only begun to speak. And the first thing it did when it spoke was to dump about 20-25% of Core/Blockstream nodes in a matter of weeks. (And the next thing it did was Gemini added Ethereum trading.) So a sizable percentage of nodes are already using Classic. Despite desperate, irrelevant attempts of certain posters on these forums to "spin" the current situation as a "win" for Core - it is actually a major "fail" for Core. Because if Core/Blocksteam were not "blocking" Bitcoin's natural, organic growth with that crappy little line of temporary anti-spam kludge-code which you and your minions have refused to delete despite Satoshi explicitly telling you to back in 2010 ("MAX_BLOCKSIZE = 1000000"), then there would be something close to 0% nodes running Classic - not 25% (and many more addable at the drop of a hat). This vote is ongoing. This "voting" is not like a normal vote in a national election, which is over in one day. Unfortunately for Core/Blockstream, the "voting" for Classic and against Core is actually two-year-long referendum. It is still ongoing, and it can rapidly swing in favor of Classic at any time between now and Classic's install-by date (around January 1, 2018 I believe) - at any point when the market decides that it needs and wants bigger blocks (ie, due to a congestion crisis). You know this, Adam Back knows this, Austin Hill knows this, and some of your brainwashed supporters on censored forums probably know this too. This is probably the main reason why you're all so freaked out and feel the need to even respond to us unwashed bigger-block supporters, instead of simply ignoring us. This is probably the main reason why Adam Back feels the need to keep flying around the world, holding meetings with miners, making PowerPoint presentations in English and Chinese, and possibly also making secret deals behind the scenes. This is also why Theymos feels the need to censor. And this is perhaps also why your brainwashed supporters from censored forums feel the need to constantly make their juvenile, content-free, drive-by comments (and perhaps also why you evidently feel the need to privately message me your own comments now). Because, once again, for the umpteenth time in years, you've seen that we are not going away. Every day you get another worrisome, painful reminder from us that Classic is still running on 25% of "your" network. And everyday get another worrisome, painful reminder that Classic could easily jump to 75% in a matter of days - as soon as investors see their $7 billion wealth starting to evaporate when the network goes into a congestion crisis due to your obstructionism and insistence on artificially small 1 MB blocks. If your code were good enough to stand on its own, then all of Core's globetrotting and campaigning and censorship would be necessary. But you know, and everyone else knows, that your cripple-code does not include simple and safe scaling - and the competing code (Classic, Unlimited) does. So your code cannot stand on its own - and that's why you and your supporters feel that it's necessary to keep up the censorship and and the lies and the snark. It's shameful that a smart coder like you would be involved with such tactics. Oppressive regimes always last longer than everyone expects - but they also also collapse faster than anyone expects. We already have interesting historical precedents showing how grassroots resistance to centralized oppression and obstructionism tends to work out in the end. The phenomenon is two-fold:
The oppression usually drags on much longer than anyone expects; and
The liberation usually happens quite abruptly - much faster than anyone expects.
The Berlin Wall stayed up much longer than everyone expected - but it also came tumbling down much faster than everyone expected. Examples of opporessive regimes that held on surprisingly long, and collapsed surpisingly fast, are rather common - eg, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Both examples are actually quite germane to the case of Blockstream/Core/Theymos - as those despotic regimes were also held together by the fragile chewing gum and paper clips of denialism and censorship, and the brainwashed but ultimately complacent and fragile yes-men that inevitably arise in such an environment.) The Berlin Wall did indeed seem like it would never come down. But the grassroots resistance against it was always there, in the wings, chipping away at the oppression, trying to break free. And then when it did come down, it happened in a matter of days - much faster than anyone had expected. That's generally how these things tend to go:
oppression and obstructionism drag on forever, and the people oppressing freedom and progress erroneously believe that Core/Blockstream is "winning" (in this case: Blockstream/Core and you and Adam and Austin - and the clueless yes-men on censored forums like r\bitcoin who mindlessly support you, and the obedient Chinese miners who, thus far, have apparently been to polite to oppose you) ;
then one fine day, the market (or society) mysteriously and abruptly decides one day that "enough is enough" - and the tsunami comes in and washes the oppressors away in the blink of an eye.
So all these non-entities with their drive-by comments on these threads and their premature gloating and triumphalism are irrelevant in the long term. The only thing that really matters is investors and users - who are continually applying grassroots pressure on the network, demanding increased capacity to keep the transactions flowing (and the price rising). And then one day: the Berlin Wall comes tumbling down - or in the case of Bitcoin: a bunch of mining pools have to switch to Classic, and they will do switch so fast it will make your head spin. Because there will be an emergency congestion crisis where the network is causing the price to crash and threatening to destroy $7 billion in investor wealth. So it is understandable that your supports might sometimes prematurely gloat, or you might feel the need to try to comment publicly or privately, or Adam might feel the need to jet around the world. Because a large chunk of people have rejected your code. And because many more can and will - and they'll do in the blink of an eye. Classic is still out there, "waiting in the wings", ready to be installed, whenever the investors tell the miners that it is needed. Fortunately for big-block supporters, in this "election", the polls don't stay open for just one day, like in national elections. The voting for Classic is on-going - it runs for two years. It is happening now, and it will continue to happen until around January 1, 2018 (which is when Classic-as-an-option has been set to officially "expire"). To make a weird comparison with American presidential politics: It's kinda like if either Hillary or Trump were already in office - but meanwhile there was also an ongoing election (where people could change their votes as often as they want), and the day when people got fed up with the incompetent incumbent, they can throw them out (and install someone like Bernie instead) in the blink of an eye. So while the inertia does favor the incumbent (because people are lazy: it takes them a while to become informed, or fed up, or panicked), this kind of long-running, basically never-ending election favors the insurgent (because once the incumbent visibly screws up, the insurgent gets adopted - permanently). Everyone knows that Satoshi explicitly defined Bitcoin to be a voting system, in and of itself. Not only does the network vote on which valid block to append next to the chain - the network also votes on the very definition of what a "valid block" is. Go ahead and re-read the anonymous PDF that was recently posted on the subject of how you are dangerously centralizing Bitcoin by trying to prevent any votes from taking place: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4hxlquhoh_a_warning_regarding_the_onset_of_centralised/ The insurgent (Classic, Unlimited) is right (they maximally use available bandwidth) - while the incumbent (Core) is wrong (it needlessly throws bandwidth out the window, choking the network, suppressing volume, and hurting the price). And you, and Adam, and Austin Hill - and your funders from the Bilderberg Group - must be freaking out that there is no way you can get rid of Classic (due to the open-source nature of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin). Cripple-code will always be rejected by the network. Classic is already running on about 20%-25% of nodes, and there is nothing you can do to stop it - except commenting on these threads, or having guys like Adam flying around the world doing PowerPoints, etc. Everything you do is irrelevant when compared against billions of dollars in current wealth (and possibly trillions more down the road) which needs and wants and will get bigger blocks. You guys no longer even make technical arguments against bigger blocks - because there are none: Classic's codebase is 99% the same as Core, except with bigger blocks. So when we do finally get bigger blocks, we will get them very, very fast: because it only takes a few hours to upgrade the software to keep all the good crypto and networking code that Core/Blockstream wrote - while tossing that single line of 1 MB "max blocksize" cripple-code from Core/Blockstream into the dustbin of history - just like people did with the Berlin Wall.
Note: New Reddit look may not highlight links. See old look here. A copy is hosted on GitHub for better reading experience. Check it out, contains photo of the month! Also on Medium
dcrd: Significant optimization in signature hash calculation, bloom filters support was removed, 2x faster startup thanks to in-memory full block index, multipeer work advancing, stronger protection against majority hashpower attacks. Additionally, code refactoring and cleanup, code and test infrastructure improvements. In dcrd and dcrwallet developers have been experimenting with new modular dependency and versioning schemes using vgo. @orthomind is seeking feedback for his work on reproducible builds. Decrediton: 1.2.1 bugfix release, work on SPV has started, chart additions are in progress. Further simplification of the staking process is in the pipeline (slack). Politeia: new command line tool to interact with Politeia API, general development is ongoing. Help with testing will soon be welcome: this issue sets out a test plan, join #politeia to follow progress and participate in testing. dcrdata: work ongoing on improved design, adding more charts and improving Insight API support. Android: design work advancing. Decred's own DNS seeder (dcrseeder) was released. It is written in Go and it properly supports service bit filtering, which will allow SPV nodes to find full nodes that support compact filters. Ticket splitting service by @matheusd entered beta and demonstrated an 11-way split on mainnet. Help with testing is much appreciated, please join #ticket_splitting to participate in splits, but check this doc to learn about the risks. Reddit discussion here. Trezor support is expected to land in their next firmware update. Decred is now supported by Riemann, a toolbox from James Prestwich to construct transactions for many UTXO-based chains from human-readable strings. Atomic swap with Ethereum on testnet was demonstrated at Blockspot Conference LATAM. Two new faces were added to contributors page. Dev activity stats for May: 238 active PRs, 195 master commits, 32,831 added and 22,280 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: rapid growth from ~4,000 TH/s at the beginning of the month to ~15,000 at the end with new all time high of 17,949. Interesting dynamic in hashrate distribution across mining pools: coinmine.pl share went down from 55% to 25% while F2Pool up from 2% to 44%. [Note: as of June 6, the hashrate continues to rise and has already passed 22,000 TH/s] Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 91.3 DCR (+0.8), stake participation is 46.9% (+0.8%) with 3.68 million DCR locked (+0.15). Min price was 85.56. On May 11 ticket price surged to 96.99, staying elevated for longer than usual after such a pump. Locked DCR peaked at 47.17%. jet_user on reddit suggested that the DCR for these tickets likely came from a miner with significant hashrate. Nodes: there are 226 public listening and 405 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 45% on v1.2.0 (up from 24% last month), 39% on v1.1.2, 15% on v1.1.0 and 1% running outdaded versions.
Obelisk team posted an update. Current hashrate estimate of DCR1 is 1200 GH/s at 500 W and may still change. The chips came back at 40% the speed of the simulated results, it is still unknown why. Batch 1 units may get delayed 1-2 weeks past June 30. See discussions on decred and on siacoin. @SiaBillionaire estimated that 7940 DCR1 units were sold in Batches 1-5, while Lynmar13 shared his projections of DCR1 profitability (reddit). A new Chinese miner for pre-order was noticed by our Telegram group. Woodpecker WB2 specs 1.5 TH/s at 1200 W, costs 15,000 CNY (~2,340 USD) and the initial 150 units are expected to ship on Aug 15. (pow8.com – translated) Another new miner is iBelink DSM6T: 6 TH/s at 2100 W costing $6,300 (ibelink.co). Shipping starts from June 5. Some concerns and links were posted in these twothreads.
A new mining pool is available now: altpool.net. It uses PPLNS model and takes 1% fee. Another infrastructure addition is tokensmart.io, a newly audited stake pool with 0.8% fee. There are a total of 14 stake pools now. Exchange integrations:
Upbit added DCKRW and DCUSDT pairs. A user reported that DCR deposits and withdrawals are now available.
CoinEx announced the launch of DCBTC and DCBCH pairs.
Bleutrade added DCUSDT pair. Note their reply to our tweet. It was the first exchange to list Decred minutes after launch.
Brazilian exchange OmniTradeadded DCBRL fiat pair following a poll. Worth noting that it is one of the first to integrate Trezor sign-in.
There are reports that DCR was added to Abucoins and Tor Exchange but we don't know much about them.
OpenBazaar released an update that allows one to trade cryptocurrencies, including DCR. @i2Rav from i2trading is now offering two sided OTC market liquidity on DCUSD in #trading channel. Paytomat, payments solution for point of sale and e-commerce, integrated Decred. (missed in April issue) CoinPayments, a payment processor supporting Decred, developed an integration with @Shopify that allows connected merchants to accept cryptocurrencies in exchange for goods.
michae2xl: Voto Legal: CEO Thiago Rondon of Appcívico, has already been contacted by 800 politicians and negotiations have started with four pre-candidates for the presidency (slack, source tweet)
Blockfolio rolled out Signal Beta with Decred in the list. Users who own or watch a coin will automatically receive updates pushed by project teams. Nice to see this Journal made it to the screenshot! Placeholder Ventures announced that Decred is their first public investment. Their Investment Thesis is a clear and well researched overview of Decred. Among other great points it noted the less obvious benefit of not doing an ICO:
By choosing not to pre-sell coins to speculators, the financial rewards from Decred’s growth most favor those who work for the network.
One project that stands out at #Consensus2018 is @decredproject. Not annoying. Real tech. Humble team. #BUIDL is strong with them. (@PallerJohn)
Token Summit in New York, USA. @cburniske and @jmonegro from Placeholder talked "Governance and Cryptoeconomics" and spoke highly of Decred. (twitter coverage: 12, video, video (from 32 min)) Campus Party in Bahia, Brazil. João Ferreira aka @girino and Gabriel @Rhama were introducing Decred, talking about governance and teaching to perform atomic swaps. (photos) Decred was introduced to the delegates from Shanghai's Caohejing Hi-Tech Park, organized by @ybfventures. Second Decred meetup in Hangzhou, China. (photos) Madison Blockchain in Madison, USA. "Lots of in-depth questions. The Q&A lasted longer than the presentation!". (photo) Blockspot Conference Latam in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photos: 1, 2) Upcoming events:
The Long-Term Bullish Case for Decred by Ben Davidow (medium.com)
Hardware Companies Are Launching Dedicated ASIC Miners for Decred (btcmanager.com)
Iterative Capital partner Chris Dannen and journalist Ben Schiller speak with Marco and Jonathan from Decred at Consensus 2018 (soundcloud)
Decred Review: What is DCR, the Decred Community & Possible Challenges by BitBoy Crypto (youtube)
Decred Founder: Bitcoin Paved Way, Phase 2 Will Shock You! (Marco Peereboom) by Pure Blockchain Wealth (youtube)
Decred & Blocknet: Revolutionary governance for every community feat. JZ at Consensus 2018 (youtube)
Decred coin - Will it be better than Bitcoin? by Bitassist (youtube)
Community stats: Twitter 39,118 (+742), Reddit 8,167 (+277), Slack 5,658 (+160). Difference is between May 5 and May 31. Reddit highlights: transparent up/down voting on Politeia, combining LN and atomic swaps, minimum viable superorganism, the controversial debate on Decred contractor model (people wondered about true motives behind the thread), tx size and fees discussion, hard moderation case, impact of ASICs on price, another "Why Decred?" thread with another excellent pitch by solar, fee analysis showing how ticket price algorithm change was controversial with ~100x cut in miner profits, impact of ticket splitting on ticket price, recommendations on promoting Decred, security against double spends and custom voting policies. @R3VoLuT1OneR posted a preview of a proposal from his company for Decred to offer scholarships for students. dcrtrader gained a couple of new moderators, weekly automatic threads were reconfigured to monthly and empty threads were removed. Currently most trading talk happens on #trading and some leaks to decred. A separate trading sub offers some advantages: unlimited trading talk, broad range of allowed topics, free speech and transparent moderation, in addition to standard reddit threaded discussion, permanent history and search. Forum: potential social attacks on Decred. Slack: the #governance channel created last month has seen many intelligent conversations on topics including: finite attention of decision makers, why stakeholders can make good decisions (opposed to a common narrative than only developers are capable of making good decisions), proposal funding and contractor pre-qualification, Cardano and Dash treasuries, quadratic voting, equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, and much more. One particularly important issue being discussed is the growing number of posts arguing that on-chain governance and coin voting is bad. Just a few examples from Twitter: Decred is solving an imagined problem (decent response by @jm_buirski), we convince ourselves that we need governance and ticket price algo vote was not controversial, on-chain governance hurts node operators and it is too early for it, it robs node operators of their role, crypto risks being captured by the wealthy, it is a huge threat to the whole public blockchain space, coin holders should not own the blockchain. Some responses were posted here and here on Twitter, as well as this article by Noah Pierau.
The month of May has seen Decred earn some much deserved attention in the markets. DCR started the month around 0.009 BTC and finished around 0.0125 with interim high of 0.0165 on Bittrex. In USD terms it started around $81 and finished around $92, temporarily rising to $118. During a period in which most altcoins suffered, Decred has performed well; rising from rank #45 to #30 on Coinmarketcap. The addition of a much awaited KRW pair on Upbit saw the price briefly double on some exchanges. This pair opens up direct DCR to fiat trading in one of the largest cryptocurrency markets in the world. An update from @i2Rav:
We have begun trading DCR in large volume daily. The interest around DCR has really started to grow in terms of OTC quote requests. More and more customers are asking about trading it.
Like in previous month, Decred scores high by "% down from ATH" indicator being #2 on onchainfx as of June 6.
David Vorick (@taek) published lots of insights into the world of ASIC manufacturing (reddit). Bitmain replied. Bitmain released an ASIC for Equihash (archived), an algorithm thought to be somewhat ASIC-resistant 2 years ago. Threepure PoWcoins were attacked this month, one attempting to be ASIC resistant. This shows the importance of Decred's PoS layer that exerts control over miners and allows Decred to welcome ASIC miners for more PoW security without sacrificing sovereignty to them. Upbit was raided over suspected fraud and put under investigation. Following news reported no illicit activity was found and suggested and raid was premature and damaged trust in local exchanges. Circle, the new owner of Poloniex, announced a USD-backed stablecoin and Bitmain partnership. The plan is to make USDC available as a primary market on Poloniex. More details in the FAQ. Poloniex announced lower trading fees. Bittrex plans to offer USD trading pairs. @sumiflow made good progress on correcting Decred market cap on several sites:
speaking of market cap, I got it corrected on coingecko, cryptocompare, and worldcoinindex onchainfx, livecoinwatch, and cryptoindex.co said they would update it about a month ago but haven't yet I messaged coinlib.io today but haven't got a response yet coinmarketcap refused to correct it until they can verify certain funds have moved from dev wallets which is most likely forever unknowable (slack)
About This Issue
Some source links point to Slack messages. Although Slack hides history older than ~5 days, you can read individual messages if you paste the message link into chat with yourself. Digging the full conversation is hard but possible. The history of all channels bridged to Matrix is saved in Matrix. Therefore it is possible to dig history in Matrix if you know the timestamp of the first message. Slack links encode the timestamp: https://decred.slack.com/archives/C5H9Z63AA/p1525528370000062 => 1525528370 => 2018-05-05 13:52:50. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. Your feedback is precious. You can post on GitHub, comment on Reddit or message us in #writers_room channel. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Richard-Red, snr01 and solar.
Block size: Reminder of BIP-100, and a point about miner voting
If you have an interest in the block size debate and haven't read Jeff Garzik's BIP-100 yet, you should. Besides having what I consider the best proposal so far, the introductory pages provide a thorough background on the block size issue (in plain English). The summary of his proposal (from the text):
1. Hard fork, to 2. Remove static 1MB block size limit. 3. *Simultaneously*, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB. 4. The historical 32MB limit remains. 5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015. 6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016. 7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks. 8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step. 9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.
The benefits should be obvious (also from the text):
G1: Demonstrates change is possible; the bitcoin protocol can be upgraded. G2: Eliminate 1MB limit as impediment to adoption. G3: Get hard fork risk out of the way early. G4: KISS solution, in terms of code changes. G5: Upgrade path, yet constrained until problem & solution better understood.
G3 is really important because it separates the hard fork from any potential block size change by at least 3 months, thereby greatly reducing any chance of split chains forming. The main objection in the original post and a follow up was that the voting was done by miners. As Jeff notes in the proposal, voting by miners is the "lesser of the evils" because there is no way currently to reliably poll full nodes or other stakeholders for their votes. Also as noted by Jeff in a comment, full nodes do vote for adopting this system, and need to vote again in the future to raise the block size above 32MB. More importantly though, most objections seems to equate the concept of miners that vote with the current generation of miners, i.e. mining farms and pools that operate to generate a profit from mining. The concern is that these miners will vote for block sizes that benefit their economic interests, for example keeping the block size small to reduce orphans. What this analysis misses is that fact that once the block size is determined by miners' votes, there will suddenly be an economic incentive for many stakeholders who are not currently mining, to start mining. Payment processors, exchanges, smart contracts providers, vault services, wallet makers, early adopters and others will all be motivated to participate in mining in order to influence the block size. Aside from actually mining themselves, it would seem natural for a market for votes to form. Rather than mining themselves, interested parties would pay miners to vote for their preferred block size. I could imagine this becoming a standardized bounty system, whereby interested parties post bounties for votes and miners would decide what to vote for based on the bounties offered. Although a trusted marketplace would likely suffice, there may even by a way to cryptographically guarantee that the bounty payments will be paid to the miner in exchange for their vote. And just like p2pool was created to push back against the trend of centralized mining, it would be natural for it to be extended to allow for pool users to vote for their preferred block size as well. So in summary, I believe that "voting by miners" should be seen as "voting by everyone" and should not serve as an objection to BIP-100 adoption.
Could we please make a stronger attempt to bridge this divide in the community and get more insight into the thought processes of the Core Developers?
I'm making this post in what may be a futile attempt to bridge this ever widening gap in the Bitcoin community. This is mostly going to be from the perspective of a small-time investor, not a technical guy at all. I may not be the most qualified person to make this post, but I'd like to see more posts like this so that it may be possible for us to move past this current quagmire as a more unified community. I'm posting in this subreddit even under the fear that it may get removed because I want this to be seen by more than just the people that have been pushed out of this community. Having said that, I think the first thing that we should acknowledge is that an extremely significant portion of the Bitcoin community HATE the core developers. I know that many don't care that this happens to be true, but this really should be cause for alarm. I'll spend most of this post addressing the reasons I think this is the case, then perhaps in the comments others can chime in, and we can hear from the Core developers as well. I'd like to see more polls done within the community so that we can find a better sense of the thoughts of everybody. I'm not sure where the majority of support lies but I think we need to make a better effort to address the concerns of everybody, so that we can move forward as one, stronger unit. Every one of us have invested into Bitcoin in some way, and collectively, we are what make Bitcoin worth $414 dollars. If a significant portion of us get fed up and leave, we can expect price drop, which is bad for everybody. (Unless of course you have decided to short Bitcoin.) But the people that leave are probably not going to leave Crypto altogether. Personally, I've started putting more and more of my money into alt-coins that seem better equipped to fulfill the potential which Bitcoin may not be able to with the current development team. If enough of us decide that, it's possible that another coin could take over. While this is unlikely, I think it's undeniably true that many have liquidated their Bitcoin holdings because this loss of faith in developers, and I think there are far more people that would like to invest, but think that Bitcoin is too risky with its current development team. To that end, let's restore confidence in the current team by delving into their thought processes. I think everything unfortunately comes back to the blocksize debate. It's exhausting, but it needs to come to a conclusion if we want more people to invest in Bitcoin. And I think we all want as many people to invest in Bitcoin as possible.
Core Developers don't seem to have any urgency to get this block size thing resolved. I think most people see this as the number one problem with bitcoin right now, and would like to see is all effort being put into a permanent solution before we see the developers work on less critical things. A lot of talk has been thrown around about a temporary, small increase to buy more time, but many want this blocksize issue to be in Bitcoin's rear-view mirror. The reason being that as long as this uncertainty exists, there are a lot of investors that simply won't get into bitcoin, and to foster the network effect, we need to get as many people in as soon as possible. We have a halving coming up shortly, which brings with it a potential price increase, and I for one would like to see how much it can go up if we don't have this blocksize cloud hanging over investors. So the question for Core Developers is, how much do you feel the same? How committed are you to putting out a permanent solution as quickly as is safe?(This, by the way, is why BIP101 is so appealing to so many people. It may not be the best solution, but it is A solution. One that has been tested, and can resolve this debate once and for all.)
The Core Developers don't seem to be willing to compromise much. It's great that we had those scaling Bitcoin conferences, but what did we get out of them? When the major exchanges came out this summer in support of BIP101, the Core developers quickly issued a letter saying that they've heard our concerns, and asked us to wait until the Scaling Bitcoin conferences were over. Many were hoping for a clear path forward and a clear alternative to BIP101 upon the conclusion of the second one, but the second one has concluded and we do not have that. We have a lot of promising ideas, but nothing that would be an alternative to BIP101. (That is, something that would conclude this block size debate once and for all.) We don't even have a timeline or a plan for one. It seems to me that a golden opportunity was missed to compromise on BIP101. I didn't see anything come out of the conference that would last us more than a couple of years. BIP101 supporters want a clear path forward and they still do not have that from Core. So the questions is, how willing are you to compromise with the people that want BIP101? Would you be willing to compromise on a version of BIP101 that started at 4MB, or doubled slower?
The Core developers aren't very good at communicating with their detractors. I think this is in part because they have little interest in communicating with people that don't understand the technical side of things. There is a sense that they see themselves above everybody else, and that they do not answer to the people that give their project value. Contrast this with the simple, thorough, and easy-to-understand, blog posts of Gavin and Mike. Gavin made a series of blog posts addressing every single one of Core developers concerns about raising the block size. As a casual investor, I really get the sense that he knows what he's talking about, and I trust him to lead us forward. The core developers didn't really do an adequate job explaining to us why that trust would be misplaced, and didn't adequately address his points about raising the block size. So the question is, will Core Developers make a better effort to communicate with us, and make us feel that our concerns are being heard? (This would of course include publicly denouncing the censorship which runs through some of the main Bitcoin channels, instead of pretending like it doesn't exist, or that it's not a problem.)
It feels like core developers have framed the argument about raising the block size in a bad way. They have presented this as a matter of centralization vs. decentralization. Could you help us better understand why supporting BIP101 is necessarily synonymous with centralization, and why that would be a bad thing. It seems to me that the biggest concern is that if the block size gets too high, then it will be too cost prohibitive for an individual to run a full node, and it may lead to transactions not being broadcast because those transactions go against the interests of the small number of node operators that can afford to run them. (If I understand the argument correctly.) However, I'm not really too concerned about it. It seems that no matter how big Bitcoin gets, there will always be a significant number of early adopters that care about Bitcoin's decentralization, and will be able to afford to run a full node. This makes some sense, right? If we're maxing out 8GB blocks, it's difficult to imagine that bitcoin is going to continue to be worth $414 dollars. Most likely they will be worth tens of thousands of dollars, and given how much more affordable memory, disc space, and bandwidth are each and every year, I have a really hard time imagining a scenario where a full node would be so costly to operate that they there wouldn't still be plenty that are are willing to broadcast any valid transaction. So where am I wrong here? Why should I be more concerned about this than I am? (Also, when it comes to centralization, why is it okay for the future of Bitcoin to rely on Blockstream's ability to put out a functional Lightning network? If we had to rely on such a network to continue to make transactions affordably, wouldn't that be centralization as well?)
It feels like the core developers are abandoning some of the potential that Bitcoin has to offer. When I was first looking into Bitcoin, I was told about all the potential the the blockchain could offer. This is one of the reasons I invested. We could use bitcoin for normal peer-to-peer financial transactions, but also micropayments, smart contracts, remittances, a distributed public ledger, colored coins, etc. It seems like if we want our currency to have the most possible value, shouldn't we try to do everything in our power to maximizes it's potential uses? Shouldn't we be inviting people to use our blockchain to use as they please instead of pushing them toward private blockchains? Do we still want Bitcoin to remain peer-to-peer? There seems to be a debate over whether Bitcoin should be merely a settlement layer. Can't it be both? Wouldn't it be more useful as both? Wouldn't that drive more people to invest?
This is getting long, and I know this isn't an exhaustive list of complaints, but I think it hits at the biggest ones. I also realize I may be showing my ignorance here as well, so please do correct any misunderstandings. I have a significant portion of my total wealth tied up in this currency, and I would like to be reassured that this remains a good investment with Core developers in charge. I believe that they do want what's best for Bitcoin, but their words and actions have been confusing, and fostering a greater divide in the community. It certainly feels like they aren't too concerned about Bitcoin as an investment for a lot of people, and I'd like to see that changed. Thank you for reading all this, and thank you for your thoughts and opinions. Lets keep this friendly, even if it ends up getting sorted by most controversial.
Bitcoin Cash: Why big blockers are overplaying their hand
First off, I support the idea of giving users choice and letting markets decide as opposed to central planning. Listing BCC on exchanges allows a more inclusive means of reaching consensus in the block size debate than just relying on closed door meetings, censored discussions on forums or having sylabil-able polls. That being said, I don't think BCC is an appealing option for anyone who isn't on the "extreme big blocker" side. Personally, as much as I am against the anti-HF FUD from Core supporters, I think that the concerns about Segwit are quite exaggerated also, and that Bitcoin will be working just fine with it. E.g. the weight limit: Yes you could create 4mb blocks in extreme cases, but by doing that you'd be cleaning up the utxo set also which is good. Also, how exactly could this be used for a practically relevant, sustainable attack? Most of all though, I think that those Core devs who didn't honour the HK agreement are rightly criticised for it and that big blockers can set a positive example by following through with their commitment to the NY agreement. Those who signed the NY agreement and support BCC now (like memorydealers) seem to undermine that position though. IMHO, a likely outcome could be: The BCC price quickly tanking below 100$ as many would be dumping coins and few would be buying apart from very convinced anti-Segwit- "let's fire Core devs at all costs"- die-hards. This could then weaken the majority position of "moderate big blockers" when the time for the Segwit2x hard fork comes: Core supporters will claim the HF will be bound to fail, just as the BCC HF, because the market highly values the support of Core devs above anything else. If people like Roger support BCC, small blockers will use its failure to argue against his position in the ecosystem. So whilst I think it's a good idea to have a contingency plan in case the Segwit2x HF fails, it is also counter productive IMHO to weaken the NY agreement in advance by supporting a HF too early. A main reason is that people who buy BTC between now and November will lose money if Segwit2x falls through and BCC becomes the dominant chain. So if you support both, you are basically telling noob users to abstain form buying btc in the next 3 months.