gmaxwell? | Bitcoin Forum

07-08 17:02 - 'Sure, everybody knows well that the miners promised to exclusively run core and activate SW, while Core promised nothing / s / Even gmaxwell said something other in his famous "dipshit" quote.' by /u/history_is_happening removed from /r/Bitcoin within 208-218min

'''
Sure, everybody knows well that the miners promised to exclusively run core and activate SW, while Core promised nothing /s
Even gmaxwell said something other in his famous "dipshit" quote.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: history_is_happening
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[part 4 of 5] Towards Massive On-chain Scaling: Xthin cuts the bandwidth required for block propagation by a factor of 24

[part 4 of 5] Towards Massive On-chain Scaling: Xthin cuts the bandwidth required for block propagation by a factor of 24 submitted by Peter__R to btc [link] [comments]

Re: Loss of hashpower - To lead Bitcoin dev - "If this is published widely price might tank?"

Re: Loss of hashpower - To lead Bitcoin dev - submitted by openwrtq to btc [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

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

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

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

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

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

Full blocks are not a disaster

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

Segwit

What is segwit

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

Why is segwit being blocked

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

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

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

What if segwit never activates

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

Lightning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

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

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

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

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

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

Fighting off 2x HF

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

Misinformation / sockpuppets

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

History

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

Misc (mostly memes)

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

So Peter Todd & Gavin Andresen have been "arguing". Who is correct on BTC scalability?

I honestly don't know much about these men. At first impression (if I can remember correctly) Peter sold 50% of his Bitcoins cause he was mad at GHash and the risk of 51% attack.
I think the rest of the story goes like this: Gavin thinks Bitcoin can scale by implementing so and so, Peter says it won't work, said another method needs to be used instead.
So who between the two is "right"?
submitted by Logical007 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Don't buy the current massive FUD campaign, keep calm, Hodl and enjoy these facts...

Bitcoin keeps going on stronger than ever and its development is growing fast. Core developers are working really hard and efficiently. Check out this great summary by John Newbery:
https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/928642936555876354
Phew. I'm glad that madness is behind us. If you've been distracted in the last 6 months, you may have missed the real work happening.
We've released the most robust and performant Bitcoin client yet: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.15.0.1/ … (thanks to @orionwl and all contributors!)
Work continues apace on signature aggregation and batch validation (thanks to @pwuille and gmaxwell)
BIP159 is in the works so pruned nodes can serve recent blocks to their peers: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10387 … (thanks to @jonasschnelli)
Bitcoin has taken one small step (or is that a giant leap?) closer to the moon: https://blockstream.com/satellite/ (thanks to @adam3us and the Blockstream satellite team)
The fiber network continues to be made more robust, reducing miner centralization pressure: http://bitcoinfibre.org/ (thanks to @theBlueMatt)
A major Bitcoin service company has rolled out SegWit for over half its customers , cutting fees in half: https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgo-segwit-launch-4732163d2c7f … (thanks to @lopp and @murchandamus)
(shameless plug 😳) I've announced an initiative to help broaden and strengthen the Bitcoin developer community: http://hackerresidency.com
There are three (count 'em) lightning UIs: http://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2017/10/12/test-blitz.htmlhttp://zap.jackmallers.com/ https://github.com/alexbosworth/lnd-gui … (thanks to @roasbeef, @jackmallers and @alexbosworth)
... and work continues on four independent lightning implementations: https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-apphttps://github.com/ElementsProject/lightninghttps://github.com/ACINQ/eclair https://github.com/mit-dci/lit (thanks to @starkness, @rusty_twit, @acinq_co and @tdryja)
And in with a bullet, we now have aggregatable range proofs in O(log(n)) size for compact confidential transactions. Bang bang: http://web.stanford.edu/~buenz/pubs/bulletproofs.pdf …. (thanks to Benedikt Bünz)
Now imagine what we could have achieved together if we weren't also having to write code to protect user funds from a dangerous 2x fork.
Addendum: This list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, but turns out that I forget a bunch of stuff which is just far too cool to exclude.
First up: Neutrino - light clients done right: https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino … (thanks to @roasbeef and @stile65)
Eclair: another really cool looking lightning client:John Newbery added,
Announcing Eclair Wallet, a user-friendly android wallet for Lightning ⚡️https://medium.com/@ACINQ/announcing-eclair-wallet-a8d8c136fc7e … #bitcoinlightning
Three (at least) proposals for MAST (thanks @johnsonlau01, @MarkFriedenbach and Russell O'Connor)
Scaling is coming, ignore the FUD. The most important thing for Bitcoin now is for its main chain to keep its main attributes: Antifragility and Immutability, that's what gives it the status as a safe store of value. To use it to buy a cup of coffee it's not a priority (but we will get there later), just like the Internet, built on a solid base and adding all the needed and desired functionalities with second layer apps.
Also, Note the massive amount of qualified devs working on Bitcoin and those second layer apps vs the few crappy devs on the roger-coin. Which project do you think has more value in the medium and long term?
Edit: Formatting
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Reason behind the 20th percentile

Reason behind the 20th percentile submitted by Piper67 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

/u/theymos is the original big blocker

This was pulled straight from a 2013 bitcointalk thread where theymos was responding to nullc about increasing the block size. See the full text at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492629#msg1492629
Quote from: theymos on January 31, 2013, 08:59:57 AM
Quote from: gmaxwell on January 31, 2013, 08:01:14 AM It's often repeated that Satoshi intended to remove "the limit" but I always understood that to be the 500k maximum generation soft limit... quite possible I misunderstood, but I don't understand why it would be a hardforking protocol rule otherwise.
Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0
I believe that Satoshi expected most people to use some sort of lightweight node, with only companies and true enthusiasts being full nodes. Mike Hearn's view is similar to Satoshi's view.
I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.
IMO Mike Hearn's plan would probably work. The market/community would find a way to pay for the network's security, and it would be easy enough to become a full node that the currency wouldn't be at risk. The max block size would not truly be unlimited, since miners would always need to produce blocks that the vast majority of full nodes and other miners would be able and willing to process in a reasonable amount of time.
However, enforcing a max block size is safer. It's not totally clear that an unlimited max block size would work. So I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin. Some other cryptocurrency can try the other method. I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.
theymos , what changed? The more civilized big blockers would genuinely like to know what changed your mind. Ignore the trolls. Even your voice is welcome in this sub.
submitted by alwaysAn0n to btc [link] [comments]

List of qualities needed to dethrone Bitcoin.

Skycoin is 51% attack proof and addresses many of the security issues in Bitcoin. Skycoin is designed to be a simpler, easier to use, more secure Bitcoin. Skycoin emphasizes simplicity, security and usability.
submitted by BobUltra to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Bitcoin is stronger than ever.

Bitcoin keeps going on stronger than ever and its development is growing fast. Core developers are working really hard and efficiently. Check out this great summary by John Newbery:
https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/928642936555876354
Phew. I'm glad that madness is behind us. If you've been distracted in the last 6 months, you may have missed the real work happening.
We've released the most robust and performant Bitcoin client yet: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.15.0.1/ … (thanks to @orionwl and all contributors!)
Work continues apace on signature aggregation and batch validation (thanks to @pwuille and gmaxwell)
BIP159 is in the works so pruned nodes can serve recent blocks to their peers: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10387 … (thanks to @jonasschnelli)
Bitcoin has taken one small step (or is that a giant leap?) closer to the moon: https://blockstream.com/satellite/ (thanks to @adam3us and the Blockstream satellite team)
The fiber network continues to be made more robust, reducing miner centralization pressure: http://bitcoinfibre.org/ (thanks to @theBlueMatt)
A major Bitcoin service company has rolled out SegWit for over half its customers , cutting fees in half: https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgo-segwit-launch-4732163d2c7f … (thanks to @lopp and @murchandamus)
(shameless plug 😳) I've announced an initiative to help broaden and strengthen the Bitcoin developer community: http://hackerresidency.com
There are three (count 'em) lightning UIs: http://blog.lightning.engineering/announcement/2017/10/12/test-blitz.htmlhttp://zap.jackmallers.com/ https://github.com/alexbosworth/lnd-gui … (thanks to @roasbeef, @jackmallers and @alexbosworth)
... and work continues on four independent lightning implementations: https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-apphttps://github.com/ElementsProject/lightninghttps://github.com/ACINQ/eclair https://github.com/mit-dci/lit (thanks to @starkness, @rusty_twit, @acinq_co and @tdryja)
And in with a bullet, we now have aggregatable range proofs in O(log(n)) size for compact confidential transactions. Bang bang: http://web.stanford.edu/~buenz/pubs/bulletproofs.pdf …. (thanks to Benedikt Bünz)
Now imagine what we could have achieved together if we weren't also having to write code to protect user funds from a dangerous 2x fork.
Addendum: This list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, but turns out that I forget a bunch of stuff which is just far too cool to exclude.
First up: Neutrino - light clients done right: https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino … (thanks to @roasbeef and @stile65)
Eclair: another really cool looking lightning client:John Newbery added,
Announcing Eclair Wallet, a user-friendly android wallet for Lightning ⚡️https://medium.com/@ACINQ/announcing-eclair-wallet-a8d8c136fc7e … #bitcoinlightning
Three (at least) proposals for MAST (thanks @johnsonlau01, @MarkFriedenbach and Russell O'Connor)
Scaling is coming, ignore the FUD. The most important thing for Bitcoin now is for its main chain to keep its main attributes: Antifragility and Immutability, that's what gives it the status as a safe store of value. To use it to buy a cup of coffee it's not a priority (but we will get there later), just like the Internet, built on a solid base and adding all the needed and desired functionalities with second layer apps.
Also, Note the massive amount of qualified devs working on Bitcoin and those second layer apps vs the few crappy devs on the roger-coin. Which project do you think has more value in the medium and long term?
submitted by readish to btc [link] [comments]

Let's discuss something tech-related for a change: Sidechains!

Okay rbitcoin, yeah yeah J Morgan yeah yeah blah blah boo hoo. Okay? Good.
So here's what I know:
  1. The original sidechains paper seems to have grown out of gmaxwell's ramblings about CoinWitness, which would entail adding a zk-SNARK verifier into Bitcoin Core. A zk-SNARK verifier would allow Bitcoin fullnodes to have a programmable verifier, with the data being verified (e.g. entire sidechain blocks) not needed to be provided to the verifier, just a tiny 288-byte transcript (the proof). Note that fullnodes don't even need to execute the programmed verifier themselves, just check the 288-byte proof that the program was honestly executed by someone else with a lot more processing power.
  2. CoinWitness was planned to use the vnTinyRAM, a virtual machine for running a von Neumann program. You could write a C code verifier and compile it to run on vnTinyRAM. RAM here is Random Access Machine, not Random Access Memory, BTW. Note however that vnTinyRAM has limited number of "clock cycles" i.e. instructions it could execute; it won't allow true Turing completeness, as it requires termination, and if you reach the cycle limit the verifier is treated as if it failed.
  3. CoinWitness could be used for a lot of different financial systems, not just sidechains! For example if you could program perfectly, you could set up a trustable Chaumian bank or a trustable mixer (well, trustable if every user was reviewing your code before they used it, LOL).
  4. zk-SNARKs are cool, but this rather nicely shows the importance of not depending on novel crypto.
  5. zk-SNARKs also require a trusted setup (i.e. someone generates some random data from a seed, and promises not to keep its seed, something like that), at least according to some treatments I've seen (don't know enough cryptography to know which ones are correct or if I'm missing something). Some newer papers seem to be using called "PCP" to skip the trusted setup, but increases the size of proofs and the load on verifiers. See also previous item for the importance of not depending on novel crypto.
  6. So... zk-SNARKs are out. The Blockstream sidechains paper thus focuses on SPV proofs. Blockstream's Elements sidechain includes SPV proofs, and uses SPV proofs for main->side transfers. In case you're curious, Elements uses fedpeg for side->main, since they were working with an unpatched mainchain Bitcoin.
  7. SPV proofs kinda suck. You need a mechanism to repeal them by showing a longer SPV proof that shows that the side->main transfer didn't actually occur. That mechanism should also be repealable by showing an even longer SPV proof that shows that by golly, yes the side->main transfer really did occur you dolt (to be specific: a withdrawproofverify UTXO is unlocked by an SPV proof, and must then be paid to a UTXO that is unlocked either by a timelock, or a reorgproof. The reorgproof is an even longer SPV proof that should pay back to a withdrawproofverify UTXO, and you would then retry with your even longer SPV proof of existence (withdrawproof) presumably the sidechain had extended by that time, which an attacker would have to counter with a yet longer SPV proof of non-existence (reorgproof), etc.). And so on.
  8. So, drivechains instead of SPV proofs. Drivechains use miner voting to determine if a side->main transfer did occur.
  9. Miner voting, yeah, that mechanism which prevented SegWit from activating until August this year. Miner voting is totes fine, guys.
  10. There are actually two drivechain proposals, one by Sergio Demian LerneRootstock (OP_COUNT_ACKS) and another by Paul Sztorc/Truthcoin (upvotes/downvotes on coinbase tx).
  11. Drivechains require merge mining, so every sidechain miner needs to be a mainchain miner.
  12. Paul Sztorc is proposing something about "blind" merge mining, which is basically that the sidechain miner is theoretically separate fro mthe mainchain miner, and pays the latter to put some hashes (presumably sidechain block hashes) on the chain. This style of sidechain miners doesn't have a way to affect miner voting, though, just the hash committed to in the merge-mine, so I don't see why he bothered.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [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]

People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.

https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3f6ukl
Wow.
On many occasions, I have publicly stated my respect for Greg's cryptography and networking coding skills and I have publicly given him credit where credit was due.
But now I'm starting to agree with people who say that there are plenty of other talented devs who could also provide those same coding skills as well - and that Greg's destructive, arrogant and anti-social behavior is actually driving away more talented devs than he can attract.
Check out these quotes about Greg from other Bitcoin users below:
I honestly don't think he is capable of being a worthy contributor.
He is arrogant to the extreme, destructive/disruptive to social circles and as an extension decision-making (as he must ALWAYS be right), and thus incapable of being any kind of valuable contributor.
He has a very solid track record spanning years, and across projects (his abhorrent behaviour when he was a Wikipedia contributor) that demonstrate he is not good for much other than menial single-user projects.
I simply do not trust him with anything unless he were overseen by someone that knows what he is like and can veto his decisions at a moment's notice.
At this stage I'd take 5 mediocre but personable cryptographers over Greg every day of the week, as I know they can work together, build strong and respectable working relationships, admit when they're wrong (or fuck up), and point out each others' mistakes without being a cunt about it.
Greg is very, VERY bad for Bitcoin.
He's had over a decade to mature, and it simply hasn't happened, he's fucking done in my books. No more twentieth chance for him.
~ ferretinjapan
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fih4z
His coding skills are absolutely not that rare.
I have hired a dozen people who could code circles around him, and have proven it in their ability to code for millions of dollars.
His lack of comprehension on basic logic, however, is a rare skill.
~ lifeboatz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fr70q
Cryptography has been figured out by someone else. BTC doesn't need much new in that regard.
ECDSA is a known digital signature algo, and nullc isn't making changes to it.
Even if BTC makes use of another DSA, someone else will write the libs.
~ one_line_commenter
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fq87f
As evidenced by the Wikipedia episode, his modus operandi is to become highly valuable, get in a position of power, undertake autocratic actions and then everyone is in a dilemma - they don't like what he is doing, but they worry about losing his "valuable contributions" (sound familiar?).
It is weak to let concerns over losing his "skills" prevent the project from showing him the door.
He should go.
Why should we risk his behavior with our or other people's money and one of the greatest innovations in the last 50 years?
There is probably some other project out there in the world where he can contribute his skills to.
As it is becoming very obvious - there are many talented developers and innovations going on in altcoins etc. A lot of this talent is simply lost to Bitcoin because of him.
It is easy to see what we might be losing by him going.
It is not as obvious what we might be gaining - but it could be truly great.
~ papabitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3flhj3
When Maxwell did a Satoshi-like disappearance late 2015, the dev mailing list sparked into life with a lot of polite, constructive, and free-thinking discussion.
Tragically, the Maxwell vanishing act only lasted a month or so, and the clammy Shadow of Darkness fell once more on the mailing list and Core Dev.
I don't believe that he can contribute without driving away more development than he can attract.
~ solex1
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fq8ma
I've seen it many times - 1 person can affect a whole culture.
When they are gone it is suddenly like everyone can breathe again.
~ papabitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fs2hv
If I was maintainer of bitcoin I would ask Greg to go away and leave for good.
I acknowledge the crypto wizardness of Greg, but it seems to be the kind of person to only leave scorched earth after a conflict.
~ stkoelle
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fb0iu
If Greg is under stress, and feeling let-down by those around him, and striving to obtain his vision at all costs - then he would probably be better off stepping back.
If this is a repeating pattern for him, he should probably seek some kind of professional advice and support.
Smart people tend to get screwed up by events in life.
I don't bear him any personal malice - I just want him to go and play in some other sandpit - he has had his chances.
~ papabitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fqmd7
Greg's destructiveness seems to actually be part of a pattern stretching back 10 years, as shown by his vandalism of the Wikipedia project in 2006:
Wikipedians on Greg Maxwell in 2006 (now CTO of Blockstream): "engaged in vandalism", "his behavior is outrageous", "on a rampage", "beyond the pale", "bullying", "calling people assholes", "full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults", "pretends to be an admin", "he seems to think he is above policy"...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
GMaxwell in 2006, during his Wikipedia vandalism episode: "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/459iyw/gmaxwell_in_2006_during_his_wikipedia_vandalism/
Greg Maxwell's Wikipedia War - or he how learned to stop worrying and love the sock puppet
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/457y0k/greg_maxwells_wikipedia_war_or_he_how_learned_to/
And of course, there have been many, many posts on these forums over the past months, documenting Greg Maxwell's poor leadership skills, underhanded and anti-social behavior, and economic incompetence.
Below is a sampling of these posts exposing Greg's toxic influence on Bitcoin:
Greg Maxwell admits the main reason for the block size limit is to force a fee market. Not because of bandwidth, transmission rates, orphaning, but because otherwise transactions would be 'too cheap'.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42hl7g/greg_maxwell_admits_the_main_reason_for_the_block/
Greg Maxwell was wrong: Transaction fees can pay for proof-of-work security without a restrictive block size limit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/
Andrew Stone: "I believe that the market should be making the decision of what should be on the Blockchain based on transaction fee, not Gregory Maxwell. I believe that the market should be making the decision of how big blocks should be, not Gregory Maxwell."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3w2562/andrew_stone_i_believe_that_the_market_should_be/
Mike Hearn:"Bitcoin's problem is not a lack of a leader, it's problem is that the leader is Gregory Maxwell at Blockstream"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4c9y3e/mike_hearnbitcoins_problem_is_not_a_lack_of_a/
Greg Maxwell caught red handed playing dirty to convince Chinese miners
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/438udm/greg_maxwell_caught_red_handed_playing_dirty_to/
My response to Gregory Maxwell's "trip to the moon" statement
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4393oe/my_response_to_gregory_maxwells_trip_to_the_moon/
It is "clear that Greg Maxwell actually has a fairly superficial understanding of large swaths of computer science, information theory, physics and mathematics."- Dr. Peter Rizun (managing editor of the journal Ledger)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xok2o/it_is_clear_that_greg_maxwell_unullc_actually_has/
Uh-oh: "A warning regarding the onset of centralised authority in the control of Bitcoin through Blocksize restrictions: Several core developers, including Gregory Maxwell, have assumed a mantle of control. This is centralisation. The Blockchain needs to be unconstrained." (anonymous PDF on Scribd)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4hxlquhoh_a_warning_regarding_the_onset_of_centralised/
Blockstream Core Dev Greg Maxwell still doesn't get it, condones censorship in bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42vqyq/blockstream_core_dev_greg_maxwell_still_doesnt/
This exchange between Voorhees and Maxwell last month opened my eyes that there's a serious problem communicating with Core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49k70a/this_exchange_between_voorhees_and_maxwell_last/
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46052e/adam_back_greg_maxwell_are_experts_in_mathematics/
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc ... So why the fuck has Core/Blockstream done everything they can to obstruct this simple, safe scaling solution? And where is SegWit? When are we going to judge Core/Blockstream by their (in)actions - and not by their words?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4jzf05/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
Greg Maxwell nullc just drove the final nail into the coffin of his crumbling credibility - by arguing that Bitcoin Classic should adopt Luke-Jr's poison-pill pull-request to change the PoW (and bump all miners off the network). If Luke-Jr's poison pill is so great, then why doesn't Core add it?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41c1h6/greg_maxwell_unullc_just_drove_the_final_nail/
Gregory Maxwell nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44qr31/gregory_maxwell_unullc_has_evidently_never_heard/
Greg Maxwell 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:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ir6xh/greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream_has_sent/
Rewriting history: Greg Maxwell is claiming some of Gavin's earliest commits on Github
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45g3d5/rewriting_history_greg_maxwell_is_claiming_some/
Greg Maxwell, nullc, given your valid interest in accurate representation of authorship, what do you do about THIS?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4550sl/greg_maxwell_unullc_given_your_valid_interest_in/
Collaboration requires communication
~ GavinAndresen
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4asyc9/collaboration_requires_communication/
Maxwell the vandal calls Adam, Luke, and Peter Todd dipshits
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8rsa/maxwell_the_vandal_calls_adam_luke_and_peter_todd/
In successful open-source software projects, the community should drive the code - not the other way around. Projects fail when "dead scripture" gets prioritized over "common sense". (Another excruciating analysis of Core/Blockstream's pathological fetishizing of a temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8kda/in_successful_opensource_software_projects_the/
The tragedy of Core/Blockstream/Theymos/Luke-JAdamBack/GregMaxell is that they're too ignorant about Computer Science to understand the Robustness Principle (“Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept”), and instead use meaningless terminology like “hard fork” vs “soft fork.”
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k6tke/the_tragedy_of/
Gregory Maxwell - "Absent [the 1mb limit] I would have not spent a dollar of my time on Bitcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41jx99/gregory_maxwell_absent_the_1mb_limit_i_would_have/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

How can we force miners to activate SegWit?

I think SegWit is a great development and a lot of miners only think about their own profit and political power, not about what the healthiest thing is for longterm bitcoin development.
So here is my question: I read here that nodes somehow can force miners to activate segwit, because otherwise they would loose potential transactions? source
But there are also a lot of (maybe just wrong) counter arguments, that it's not possible with the combined power of the nodes (which currently support segwit with already about more than 50%) - here is the link to bitnodes.21.co statistics
So tell me, is it possible as "normal users" to force miners somehow to use segwit? What can we do?
Edit: I think the idea could be, that nodes start to send segwit transactions (and activate segwit handling) - even if some miners don't accept them. If more and more nodes are sending only segwit transactions, miners would loose profit because they have to leave out a lot of them and are so somehow forced in the longterm to support SegWit.
What would happen if we activate Segwit transactions for wallets NOW?
Edit2: It looks like following points are not common knowledge:
Would also be happy if we can get some technical adivce by laanwj pwuille nullc luke-jr petertodd adam3us gavinandresen gmaxwell jgarzik jonasschnelli sipa (and more hopefully)
submitted by BitcoinReminder_com to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero) - Reformatted for Reddit

Original post by rethink-your-strategy on Bitcointalk.org here
This post has been reformatted to share on Reddit. What once was common knowledge, is now gone. You want a quality history lesson? Share this like wildfire.
August 15, 2014, 08:15:37 AM

Preamble

I'd like to start off by stating categorically that the cryptography presented by CryptoNote is completely, entirely solid. It has been vetted and looked over by fucking clever cryptographers/developers/wizards such as gmaxwell. Monero have had a group of independent mathematicians and cryptographers peer-reviewing the whitepaper (their annotations are here, and one of their reviews is here), and this same group of mathematicians and cryptographers is now reviewing the implementation of the cryptography in the Monero codebase. Many well known Bitcoin developers have already had a cursory look through the code to establish its validity. It is safe to say that, barring more exotic attacks that have to be mitigated over time as they are invented/discovered, and barring a CryptoNote implementation making rash decisions to implement something that reduces the anonymity set, the CryptoNote currencies are all cryptographically unlinkable and untraceable.
Two other things I should mention. I curse a lot when I'm angry (and scams like this make me angry). Second, where used my short date format is day/month/year (smallest to biggest).
If you find this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.

The Alleged CryptoNote/Bytecoin Story

CryptoNote is a new cryptocurrency protocol. It builds on some of the Bitcoin founding principles, but it adds to them. There are aspects of it that are truly well thought through and, in a sense, quite revolutionary. CryptoNote claim to have started working on their project years ago after Bitcoin's release, and I do not doubt the validity of this claim...clearly there's a lot of work and effort that went into this. The story as Bytecoin and CryptoNote claim it to be is as follows:
They developed the code for the principles expressed in their whitepaper, and in April, 2012, they released Bytecoin. All of the copyright messages in Bytecoin's code are "copyright the CryptoNote Developers", so clearly they are one and the same as the Bytecoin developers. In December 2012, they released their CryptoNote v1 whitepaper. In September 2013, they released their CryptoNote v2 whitepaper. In November 2013, the first piece of the Bytecoin code was first pushed to Github by "amjuarez", with a "Copyright (c) 2013 amjuarez" copyright notice. This was changed to "Copyright (c) 2013 Antonio Juarez" on March 3rd, 2014. By this juncture only the crypto libraries had been pushed up to github. Then, on March 4th, 2014, "amjuarez" pushed the rest of the code up to github, with the README strangely referring to "cybernote", even though the code referred to "Cryptonote". The copyrights all pointed to "the Cryptonote developers", and the "Antonio Juarez" copyright and license file was removed. Within a few days, "DStrange" stumbled across the bytecoin.org website when trying to mine on the bte.minefor.co.in pool (a pool for the-other-Bytecoin, BTE, not the-new-Bytecoin, BCN), and the rest is history as we know it. By this time Bytecoin had had a little over 80% of its total emission mined.

Immediate Red Flags

The first thing that is a red flag in all of this is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, is a known entity. "Antonio Juarez" is not a known entity, "DStrange" is not a known entity, none of the made up names on the Bytecoin website exist (they've since removed their "team" page, see below), none of the made up names on the CryptoNote website exist (Johannes Meier, Maurice Planck, Max Jameson, Brandon Hawking, Catherine Erwin, Albert Werner, Marec Plíškov). If they're pseudonyms, then say so. If they're real names, then who the fuck are they??? Cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are well known - they have published papers or at least have commented on articles of interest. Many of them have their own github repos and Twitter feeds, and are a presence in the cryptocurrency community.
The other immediate red flag is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, had heard of Bytecoin. Those that had heard of it thought it was the crummy SHA-256 Bitcoin clone that was a flop in the market. Bytecoin's claim that it had existed "on the deep web" for 2 years was not well received, because not a single vendor, user, miner, drug addict, drug seller, porn broker, fake ID card manufacturer, student who bought a fake ID card to get into bars, libertarian, libertard, cryptographer, Tor developer, Freenet developer, i2p developer, pedophile, or anyone else that is a known person - even just known on the Internet - had ever encountered "Bytecoin" on Tor. Ever. Nobody.

Indisputable Facts

Before I start with some conjecture and educated guesswork, I'd like to focus on an indisputable fact that obliterates any trust in both Bytecoin's and CryptoNote's bullshit story. Note, again, that I do not doubt the efficacy of the mathematics and cryptography behind CryptoNote, nor do I think there are backdoors in the code. What I do know for a fact is that the people behind CryptoNote and Bytecoin have actively deceived the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community, and that makes them untrustworthy now and in the future. If you believe in the fundamentals in CryptoNote, then you need simply use a CryptoNote-derived cryptocurrency that is demonstrably independent of CryptoNote and Bytecoin's influence. Don't worry, I go into this a little later.
So as discussed, there were these two whitepapers that I linked to earlier. Just in case they try remove them, here is the v1 whitepaper and the v2 whitepaper mirrored on Archive.org. This v1/v2 whitepaper thing has been discussed at length on the Bytecoin forum thread, and the PGP signature on the files has been confirmed as being valid. When you open the respective PDFs you'll notice the valid signatures in them:
signature in the v1 whitepaper
signature in the v2 whitepaper
These are valid Adobe signatures, signed on 15/12/2012 and 17/10/2013 respectively. Here's where it gets interesting. When we inspect this file in Adobe Acrobat we get a little more information on the signature
.
Notice the bit that says "Signing time is from the clock on the signer's computer"? Now normally you would use a Timestamp Authority (TSA) to validate your system time. There are enough public, free, RFC 3161 compatible TSAs that this is not a difficult thing. CryptoNote chose not do this. But we have no reason to doubt the time on the signature, right guys? crickets
.
See these references from the v1 whitepaper footnotes? Those two also appear in the v2 whitepaperth. Neither of those two footnotes refer to anything in the main body of the v1 whitepaper's text, they're non-existent (in the v2 whitepaper they are used in text). The problem, though, is that the Bitcointalk post linked in the footnote is not from early 2012 (proof screenshot is authentic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196259.0)
.
May 5, 2013. The footnote is referencing a post that did not exist until then. And yet we are to believe that the whitepaper was signed on 12/12/2012! What sort of fucking fools do they take us for?
A little bit of extra digging validates this further. The document properties for both the v1 whitepaper as well as the v2 whitepaper confirms they were made in TeX Live 2013, which did not exist on 12/12/2012. The XMP properties are also quite revealing
XMP properties for the v1 whitepaper
XMP properties for the v2 whitepaper
According to that, the v1 whitepaper PDF was created on 10/04/2014, and the v2 whitepaper was created on 13/03/2014. And yet both of these documents were then modified in the past (when they were signed). Clearly the CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are so advanced they also have a time machine, right?
Final confirmation that these creation dates are correct are revealed those XMP properties. The properties on both documents confirm that the PDF itself was generated from the LaTeX source using pdfTeX-1.40.14 (the pdf:Producer property). Now pdfTeX is a very old piece of software that isn't updated very often, so the minor version (the .14 part) is important.
.
pdfTeX 1.40.14 pushed to source repo on Feb 14, 2014
.
This version of pdfTeX was only pushed to the pdfTeX source repository on February 14, 2014, although it was included in a very early version of TeX Live 2013 (version 2013.20130523-1) that was released on May 23, 2013. The earliest mentions on the Internet of this version of pdfTeX are in two Stack Exchange comments that confirm its general availability at the end of May 2013 (here and here).
The conclusion we draw from this is that the CryptoNote developers, as clever as they were, intentionally deceived everyone into believing that the CryptoNote whitepapers were signed in 2012 and 2013, when the reality is that the v2 whitepaper was created in March, 2014, and the v1 whitepaper haphazardly created a month later by stripping bits out of the v2 whitepaper (accidentally leaving dead footnotes in).
Why would they create this fake v2 whitepaper in the first place? Why not just create a v1 whitepaper, or not even version it at all? The answer is simple: they wanted to lend credence and validity to the Bytecoin "2 years on the darkweb" claim so that everyone involved in CryptoNote and Bytecoin could profit from the 2 year fake mine of 82% of Bytecoin. What they didn't expect is the market to say "no thank you" to their premine scam.

And Now for Some Conjecture

As I mentioned earlier, the Bytecoin "team" page disappeared. I know it exists, because "AtomicDoge" referred to it as saying that one of the Bytecoin developers is a professor at Princeton. I called them out on it, and within a week the page had disappeared. Fucking cowards.
That was the event that triggered my desire to dig deeper and uncover the fuckery. As I discovered more and more oddities, fake accounts, trolling, and outright falsehoods, I wondered how deep the rabbit hole went. My starting point was DStrange. This is the account on Bitcointalk that "discovered" Bytecoin accidentally a mere 6 days after the first working iteration of the code was pushed to Github, purely by chance when mining a nearly dead currency on a tiny and virtually unheard of mining pool. He has subsequently appointed himself the representative of Bytecoin, or something similar. The whole thing is so badly scripted it's worse than a Spanish soap opera...I can't tell who Mr. Gonzales, the chief surgeon, is going to fuck next.
At the same time as DStrange made his "fuck me accidental discovery", another Bitcointalk account flared up to also "accidentally discover this weird thing that has randomly been discovered": Rias. What's interesting about both the "Rias" and "DStrange" accounts are their late 2013 creation date (October 31, 2013, and December 23, 2013, respectively), and yet they lay dormant until suddenly, out of the blue, on January 20th/21st they started posting. If you look at their early posts side by side you can even see the clustering: Rias, DStrange.
At any rate, the DStrange account "discovering" Bytecoin is beyond hilarious, especially with the Rias account chiming in to make the discovery seem natural. Knowing what we unmistakably do about the fake CryptoNote PDF dates lets us see this in a whole new light.
Of course, as has been pointed out before, the Bytecoin website did not exist in its "discovered" form until sometime between November 13, 2013 (when it was last captured as this random picture of a college girl) and February 25, 2014 (when it suddenly had the website on it as "discovered"). This can be confirmed by looking at the captures on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://bytecoin.org
The CryptoNote website, too, did not exist in its current form until after October 20, 2013, at which time it was still the home of an encrypted message project by Alain Meier, a founding member of the Stanford Bitcoin Group and co-founder of BlockScore. This, too, can be confirmed on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cryptonote.org
~It's hard to ascertain whether Alain had anything to do with CryptoNote or Bytecoin. It's certainly conceivable that the whitepaper was put together by him and other members of the Stanford Bitcoin Group, and the timeline fits, given that the group only formed around March 2013. More info on the people in the group can be found on their site, and determining if they played a role is something you can do in your own time.~
Update: Alain Meier posted in this thread, and followed it up with a Tweet, confirming that he has nothing to do with CryptoNote and all the related...stuff.

Batshit Insane

The Bytecoin guys revel in creating and using sockpuppet accounts. Remember that conversation where "Rias" asked who would put v1 on a whitepaper with no v2 out, and AlexGR said "a forward looking individual"? The conversation took place on May 30, and was repeated verbatim by shill accounts on Reddit on August 4 (also, screenshot in case they take it down).
Those two obvious sockpuppet/shill accounts also take delight in bashing Monero in the Monero sub-reddit (here are snippets from WhiteDynomite and cheri0). Literally the only thing these sockpuppets do, day in and day out, is make the Bytecoin sub-reddit look like it's trafficked, and spew angry bullshit all over the Monero sub-reddit. Fucking batshit insane - who the fuck has time for that? Clearly they're pissy that nobody has fallen for their scam. Oh, and did I mention that all of these sockpuppets have a late January/early February creation date? Because that's not fucking obvious at all.
And let's not forget that most recently the sockpuppets claimed that multi-sig is "a new revolutionary technology, it was discovered a short time ago and Bytecoin already implemented it". What the actual fuck. If you think that's bad, you're missing out on the best part of all: the Bytecoin shills claim that Bytecoin is actually Satoshi Nakamoto's work. I'm not fucking kidding you. For your viewing pleasure...I present to you...the Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus:
.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=512747.msg8354977#msg8354977
.
Seriously. Not only is this insulting as fuck to Satoshi Nakamoto, but it's insulting as fuck to our intelligence. And yet the fun doesn't stop there, folks! I present to you...the centerpiece of this Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus exhibit...
.
Of course! How could we have missed it! The clues were there all along! The CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are actually aliens! Fuck me on a pogostick, this is the sort of stuff that results in people getting committed to the loony bin.
One last thing: without doing too much language analysis (which is mostly supposition and bullshit), it's easy to see common grammar and spelling fuck ups. My personal favorite is the "Is it true?" question. You can see it in the Bytecoin thread asking if it's Satoshi's second project, in the Monero thread asking if the Monero devs use a botnet to fake demand, and in the Dashcoin thread confirming the donation address (for a coin whose only claim is that they copy Bytecoin perfectly, what the fuck do they need donations for??).

Layer After Layer

One of the things that happened soon after the Bytecoin "big reveal" was a string of forks popping up. The first was Bitmonero on April 18. Fantomcoin was launched May 6. Quazarcoin was launched May 8. HoneyPenny was announced on April 21, although only launched as Boolberry on May 17. duckNote was launched on May 30. MonetaVerde as launched June 17.
Now for some reason unbeknownst to anyone with who isn't a retarded fuckface, the Bytecoin code was pushed up to SourceForge on 08/04/2014 (the "Registered" date is at the bottom of the page). I have no idea why they did this, maybe it's to try and lend credence to their bullshit story (oh hey, look how old Bytecoin is, it's even on Sourceforge!)
Coincidentally, and completely unrelated (hurr durr), Quazarcoin, Fantomcoin, and Monetaverde are all also on Sourceforge. This gives us a frame of reference and a common link between them - it's quite clear that at least these three are run by the same team as CryptoNote. There is further anecdotal evidence that can be gathered by looking at the shill posts in the threads (especially the way the Moneteverda shills praise merge mining, in a way that is nearly fucking indistinguishable from the Bytecoin praise for multi-sig technology).
QuazarCoin is a special case and deserves a little attention. Let's start with OracionSeis, who launched it. He's well known on Bitcointalk for selling in-game currencies. In that same thread you'll notice this gem right at the end from Fullbuster: "Hey,OracionSeis is no longer under my use so please https://bitcointa.lk/threads/selling-most-of-the-game-currencies.301540/#post-5996983 come into this thread! thank you !" Click through to his new link and Fullbuster clarifies: "Hello, I may look new around here but i've sold my first account and created new one and i have an intention to keep the same services running as my first account did." So now that we know that OracionSeis is a fucking bought account, we can look at his actions a little more critically.
On May 7, just when Monero was being taken back by the community (see below), OracionSeis out of the blue decided to take it overelaunch it himself. This included a now-defunct website at monero.co.in, and a since-abandoned Github. The community pushed back hard, true to form, with hard-hitting statements such as "To reiterate, this is not the original devs, and thus not a relaunch. OP, fuck you for trying this. This should warrant a ban." A man after my own heart. OracionSeis caved and decided to rename it to...QuazarCoin, which launched on May 8. To recap: bought account, launched by trying to "relaunch" Monero, got fucked up, renamed it to QuazarCoin. Clearly and undeniably goes in our pile of fuckface coins.
The other three are a little more interesting. Let's start with ~fuckNote~duckNote. It's hard to say if duckNote is a CryptoNote/Bytecoin project. The addition of the HTML based wallet is a one-trick pony, a common thread among most of the CryptoNote/Bytecoin controlled coins, but that could also be the result of a not-entirely-retarded developer. Given the shill posts in the duckNote thread I'm going to flag it as possibly-controlled-by-the-fuckface-brigade.
And now we come to ~HoneyPenny~ ~MoneyPenny~ ~HoneyBerry~ ~Boolean~ Boolberry. This is an interesting one. This was "pre-announced" on April 21, although it was only released with the genesis block on May 17. This puts it fourth in line, after Fantomcoin and Quazarcoin, although fucktarded proponents of the shittily-named currency insist that it was launched on April 21 because of a pre-announcement. Fucking rejects from the Pool of Stupidity, some of them. At any rate, "cryptozoidberg" is the prolific coder that churned out a Keccak-derived PoW (Wild Keccak) in a month, and then proceeded to add completely fucking retarded features like address aliasing that requires you to mine a block to get an address (lulz) and will never cause any issues when "google" or "obama" or "zuckerberg" want their alias back. Namecoin gets around this by forcing you to renew every ~200 - 250 days, and besides, nobody is making payments to microsoft.bit. This aliasing system is another atypical one-trick-pony that the CryptoNote developers push out and claim is monumental and historical and amazing.
There's also the matter of cryptozoidberg's nickname. In the Bytecoin code there's the BYTECOIN_NETWORK identifiert, which according to the comment is "Bender's nightmare" (hurr durr, such funny, 11100111110001011011001210110110 has a 2 in it). Now this may be a little bit of conjecture, yo, but the same comment appears twice in the "epee" contributed library, once in the levin signature, and again in the portable storage signature. The contexts are so disconnected and different that it would be a fucking stretch to imagine that the same person did not write both of these. We can also rule out this being a Bytecoin-specific change, as the "Bender's nightmare" comments exist in the original epee library on githubw (which is completely unused anywhere on the planet except in Bytecoin, most unusual for a library that has any usefulness, and was first committed to github on February 9, 2014).
We know from the copyright that Andrey N. Sabelnikov is the epee author, and we can say with reasonable certainty that he was involved in Bytecoin's creation and is the dev behind Boolberry. Sabelnikov is quite famous - he wrote the Kelihos botnet code and worked at two Russian security firms, Microsoft took him to court for his involvement (accusing him of operating the botnet as well), and then settled with him out of court on the basis of him not running the botnet but just having written the code. Kelihos is a botnet that pumped out online pharmacy spam (you know the fucking annoying "Y-ou Ne3D Vi-4Gra!?" emails? those.) so it's good to see he transitioned from that to a cryptocurrency scam. Regardless of BBR's claim to have "fixed" CryptoNote's privacy (and the fake fight on Bitcointalk between the "Bytecoin devs" and cryptozoidberg), it's clear that the link between them is not transparent. BBR is either the brainchild of a spam botnet author that worked on Bytecoin, or it's the CryptoNote developers trying to have one currency distanced from the rest so that they have a claim for legitimacy. I think it's the second one, and don't want to enter into a fucking debate about it. Make up your own mind.
Which brings us to the oddest story of the bunch: Bitmonero. It's pretty clear, given its early launch date and how unfamiliar anyone was with creating a genesis block or working in completely undocumented code, that thankful_for_today is/was part of the CryptoNote developers. He made a fatal error, though: he thought (just like all the other cryptocurrencies) that being "the dev" made him infallible. Ya know what happened? He tried to force his ideas, the community politely said "fuck you", and Bitmonero was forked into Monero, which is leading the pack of CryptoNote-based coins today. Let me be perfectly fucking clear: it doesn't matter that the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers know their code and can push stuff out, and it doesn't matter that Sabelnikov can shovel bullshit features into his poorly named cryptocurrency, and it doesn't matter that Monetaverde is "green" and has "merged mining". Nobody working behind these cryptocurrencies is known in the cryptocurrency community, and that alone should be a big fucking red flag. Monero is streets ahead, partly because of the way they're developing the currency, but mostly because the "core devs" or whatever they're called are made up of reasonably well-known people. That there are a bunch of them (6 or 7?) plus a bunch of other people contributing code means that they're sanity checking each other.
And, as we saw, this has fucking infuriated the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers. They're so angry they waste hours and hours with their Reddit accounts trawling the Monero sub-reddit, for what? Nobody has fallen for their scam, and after my revelation today nobody fucking will. Transparency wins, everything else is bullshit.
As pointed out by canonsburg, when the Bytecoin/CryptoNote people realised they'd lost the fucking game, they took a "scorched earth" approach. If they couldn't have the leading CryptoNote coin...they'd fucking destroy the rest by creating a shit-storm of CryptoNote coins. Not only did they setup a thread with "A complete forking guide to create your own CryptoNote currency", but they even have a dedicated website with a fuckton of JavaScript. Unfortunately this plan hasn't worked for them, because they forgot that nobody gives a fuck, and everyone is going to carry on forking Bitcoin-based coins because of the massive infrastructure and code etc. that works with Bitcoin-based coins.
There are a bunch of other useless CryptoNote coins, by the way: Aeon, Dashcoin, Infinium-8, OneEvilCoin. We saw earlier that Dashcoin is probably another CryptoNote developer driven coin. However, this entire group is not really important enough, nor do they have enough potential, for me to give a single fuck, so make up your own mind. New CryptoNote coins that pop up should be regarded with the utmost caution, given the bullshit capabilities that we've already seen.

All Tied Up in a Bow

I want to cement the relationship between the major CryptoNote shitcoins. I know that my previous section had a lot of conjecture in it, and there's been some insinuation that I'm throwing everyone under the bus because I'm raging against the machine. That's not my style. I'm more of a Katy Perry fan..."you're going to hear me roar". There were some extra links I uncovered during my research, and I lacked the time to add it to this post. Thankfully a little bit of sleep and a can of Monster later have given me the a chance to add this. Let's start with an analysis of the DNS records of the CN coins.
If we look at the whois and DNS records for bytecoin.org, quazarcoin.org, fantomcoin.org, monetaverde.org, cryptonote.org, bytecoiner.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonotestarter.org, and boolberry.com, we find three common traits, from not-entirely-damming to oh-shiiiiiiit:
  1. There's a lot of commonality with the registrar (NameCheap for almost all of them), the DNS service (HurricaneElectric's Free DNS or NameCheap's DNS), and with the webhost (LibertyVPS, QHosteSecureFastServer.com, etc.)
  2. All of the CN domains use WhoisGuard or similar private registration services.
  3. Every single domain, without exception, uses Zoho for email. The only outlier is bitmonero.org that uses Namecheap's free email forwarding, but it's safe to disregard this as the emails probably just forward to the CryptoNote developers' email.
The instinct may be to disregard this as a fucking convenient coincidence. But it isn't: Zoho used to be a distant second go Google Apps, but has since fallen hopelessly behind. Everyone uses Google Apps or they just use mail forwarding or whatever. With the rest of the points as well, as far-fetched as the link may seem, it's the combination that is unusual and a dead giveaway of the common thread. Just to demonstrate that I'm not "blowing shit out of proportion" I went and checked the records for a handful of coins launched over the past few months to see what they use.
darkcoin.io: mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: Amazon AWS, open registration through NameCheap monero.cc: mail: mail.monero.cc, hosting: behind CloudFlare, open registration through Gandi xc-official.com: mail: Google Apps, hosting: MODX Cloud, hidden registration (DomainsByProxy) through GoDaddy blackcoin.io: mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: behind BlackLotus, open registration through NameCheap bitcoindark.org: mail: no MX records, hosting: Google User Content, open registration through Wix viacoin.org: mail: mx.viacoin.org, hosting: behind CloudFlare, closed registration (ContactPrivacy) through Hostnuke.com neutrinocoin.org: mail: HostGator, hosting: HostGator, open registration through HostGator
There's no common thread between them. Everyone uses different service providers and different platforms. And none of them use Zoho.
My next check was to inspect the web page source code for these sites to find a further link. If you take a look at the main CSS file linked in the source code for monetaverde.org, fantomcoin.org, quazarcoin.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonote-coin.org, cryptonote.org, bitmonero.org, and bytecoiner.org, we find a CSS reset snippet at the top. It has a comment at the top that says "/* CSS Reset /", and then where it resets/sets the height it has the comment "/ always display scrollbars */". Now, near as I can find, this is a CSS snipped first published by Jake Rocheleau in an article on WebDesignLedger on October 24, 2012 (although confusingly Google seems to think it appeared on plumi.de cnippetz first, but checking archive.org shows that it was only added to that site at the beginning of 2013). It isn't a very popular CSS reset snippet, it got dumped in a couple of gists on Github, and translated and re-published in an article on a Russian website in November, 2012 (let's not go full-blown conspiritard and assume this links "cryptozoidberg" back to this, he's culpable enough on his own).
It's unusual to the point of being fucking impossible for one site to be using this, let alone a whole string of supposedly unrelated sites. Over the past few years the most popular CSS reset scripts have been Eric Meyer's "Reset CSS", HTML5 Doctor CSS Reset, Yahoo! (YUI 3) Reset CSS, Universal Selector ‘’ Reset, and Normalize.css, none of which contain the "/ CSS Reset /" or "/ always display scrollbars */" comments.
You've got to ask yourself a simple question: at what point does the combination of all of these fucking coincidental, completely unusual elements stop being coincidence and start becoming evidence of a real, tenable link? Is it possible that bytecoin.org, quazarcoin.org, fantomcoin.org, monetaverde.org, cryptonote.org, bytecoiner.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonotestarter.org, and boolberry.com just happen to use similar registrars/DNS providers/web hosts and exactly the fucking same wildly unpopular email provider? And is it also possible that monetaverde.org, fantomcoin.org, quazarcoin.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonote-coin.org, cryptonote.org, and bytecoin.org just happen to use the same completely unknown, incredibly obscure CSS reset snippet? It's not a conspiracy, it's not a coincidence, it's just another piece of evidence that all of these were spewed out by the same fucking people.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Don't take the last section as any sort of push for Monero. I think it's got potential (certainly much more than the other retarded "anonymous" coins that "developers" are popping out like street children from a cheap ho), and I hold a bit of XMR for shits and giggles, so take that tacit endorsement with a pinch of fucking salt.
The point is this: Bytecoin's 82% premine was definitely the result of a faked blockchain. CryptoNote's whitepaper dates were purposely falsified to back up this bullshit claim. Both Bytecoin and CryptoNote have perpetuated this scam by making up fake website data and all sorts. They further perpetuate it using shill accounts, most notably "DStrange" and "Rias" among others.
They launched a series of cryptocurrencies that should be avoided at all cost: Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, and Monetaverde. They are likely behind duckNote and Boolberry, but fuck it, it's on your head if you want to deal with scam artists and botnet creators.
They developed amazing technology, and had a pretty decent implementation. They fucked themselves over by being fucking greedy, being utterly retarded, being batshit insane, and trying to create legitimacy where there was none. They lost the minute the community took Monero away from them, and no amount of damage control will save them from their own stupidity.
I expect there to be a fuck-ton of shills posting in this thread (and possibly a few genuine supporters who don't know any better). If you want to discuss or clarify something, cool, let's do that. If you want to have a protracted debate about my conjecture, then fuck off, it's called conjecture for a reason you ignoramus. I don't really give a flying fuck if I got it right or wrong, you're old and ugly enough to make up your own mind.
tl;dr - CryptoNote developers faked dates in whitepapers. Bytecoin faked dates in fake blockchain to facilitate an 82% premine, and CryptoNote backed them up. Bytecoin, Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, Monetaverde, Dashcoin are all from the same people and should be avoided like the fucking black plague. duckNote and Boolberry are probably from them as well, or are at least just fucking dodgy, and who the fuck cares anyway. Monero would have been fucking dodgy, but the community saved it. Make your own mind up about shit and demand that known people are involved and that there is fucking transparency. End transmission.
Just a reminder that if you found this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.
submitted by OsrsNeedsF2P to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin company CTO here. Why I oppose Segwit.

Someone asked me why I oppose Segwit recently, and here's what I told them:
Largely out of technical objections, and political ones also. I see Segwit as a crudely-designed kludge, and an unnecessary complication to the protocol. Open Transactions was working on a sidechain implementation years ago that didn't require Segwit, it only required deterministic ordering of UTXOs when creating new tx, which still doesn't have a BIP and it's a damn shame because that was a great idea.
SegWit introduces a large amount of complexity, technical debt that will make it harder for others to contribute, locking in the "core" devs. This is something that I see a lot in older coders who are afraid of becoming irrelevant and try to "lock in" their relevancy by becoming maintainers of a critical but obscure infrastructure, I saw that at national labs a lot in grad-school and during post-docs. Plus SegWit really is not a soft-fork, but a hard-fork, since you can't run an older node anymore and still even participate in validating transactions, all old nodes become obsolete. You won't have any choice over whether you want to accept "anyonecanspend" tx without signatures included unless you literally run a full node on the old repo tag, and even then your node won't actually be participating in the network anymore except as a relay, not a validator. It's a major technical change, introducing a large new attack surface, and I don't think it's prudent to force it through this way in a $10B economy. It reeks of centralized control, and I especially don't trust would-be economists and religious zealots like GMaxwell and Luke Jr. to have that control, nobody should, it's supposed to be peer-to-peer Satoshi consensus. I don't really agree that those people should have ever been the "core". Satoshi stopped talking to all of them once Gavin went to a little meeting with the CIA, remember? I don't trust any of them. "Trust no-one" used to be a motto for bitcoin, now it's "Trust Lightning Network brought to you by R3!".
I also think that if a sidechain implementation does come out, it should be from a team that doesn't have the conflicting interest of also being the maintainers of the "core", especially if that group is holding the blocksize down for the business interests of a large banking collaborative who pays their salary. To me, this represents undue control and influence of the banking community on bitcoin, and their interests are to make bitcoin into a settlement layer only, not a payment layer or a store of value for civilians. The bankers largely agree with the modern "helicopter money" theories of Bernanke, loosely based on Keynesian economic theory, as opposed to the Satoshi viewpoint of Austrian/Viennese economic theory. The bankers are aligned with the governments, they want people using fiat, they are literally opposed to any safe store of value as it negates their ability to "stimulate" people into spending by devaluing the currency, which is their excuse to keep printing money and essentially enslaving everyone else via that mechanism. The bankers and governments want people using fiat, and the "core" have even told people to use Visa instead of bitcoin!
Finally, scaling itself. The whole scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's turned sinister. Moore's law predicts a doubling of memory capacity on a given size of chip every 18 months, and Neilsen's law predicts a doubling of the fastest speeds achievable in a communication network every 12 months. Using these laws, we can extropolate that bitcoin would be just fine with an immediate increase to 8MB max blocksize, and a 30% geometric growth curve forever, and have a decreasing storage capacity signature and network propogation delay over time, forever. Therefore, the whole debate is meaningless, it's completely political. The bankers bought out the core, and now they are blocking scaling so they can try to force everyone to use Lightning Network instead of bitcoin. The core is literally trying to take all the transactions away from the miners and give it to their banking buddies, while crippling bitcoin to only be able to do banking settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not bitcoin.
submitted by ZeroFucksG1v3n to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n

https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ab7zi/bitcoin_company_cto_here_why_i_oppose_segwit/
SegWit introduces a large amount of complexity, technical debt that will make it harder for others to contribute, locking in the "Core" devs. This is something that I see a lot in older coders who are afraid of becoming irrelevant and try to "lock in" their relevancy by becoming maintainers of a critical but obscure infrastructure.
Plus SegWit really is not a soft-fork, but a hard-fork, since you can't run an older node anymore and still even participate in validating transactions, all old nodes become obsolete.
You won't have any choice over whether you want to accept "anyonecanspend" tx without signatures included unless you literally run a full node on the old repo tag, and even then your node won't actually be participating in the network anymore except as a relay, not a validator.
It's a major technical change, introducing a large new attack surface, and I don't think it's prudent to force it through this way in a $10B $15B economy.
It reeks of centralized control, and I especially don't trust would-be economists and religious zealots like GMaxwell and Luke Jr. to have that control. Nobody should, it's supposed to be peer-to-peer Satoshi consensus.
I also think that if a sidechain implementation does come out, it should be from a team that doesn't have the conflicting interest of also being the maintainers of the "Core", especially if that group is holding the blocksize down for the business interests of a large banking collaborative who pays their salary.
To me, this represents undue control and influence of the banking community on Bitcoin, and their interests are to make Bitcoin into a settlement layer only, not a payment layer or a store of value for civilians.
The bankers largely agree with the modern "helicopter money" theories of Bernanke, loosely based on Keynesian economic theory, as opposed to the Satoshi viewpoint of Austrian/Viennese economic theory.
The bankers are aligned with the governments, they want people using fiat, they are literally opposed to any safe store of value as it negates their ability to "stimulate" people into spending by devaluing the currency, which is their excuse to keep printing money and essentially enslaving everyone else via that mechanism. The bankers and governments want people using fiat, and the "Core" have even told people to use VISA instead of Bitcoin!
Finally, scaling itself. The whole scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's turned sinister. Moore's law predicts a doubling of memory capacity on a given size of chip every 18 months, and Neilsen's law predicts a doubling of the fastest speeds achievable in a communication network every 12 months. Using these laws, we can extrapolate that bitcoin would be just fine with an immediate increase to 8MB max blocksize, and a 30% geometric growth curve forever, and have a decreasing storage capacity signature and network propagation delay over time, forever. Therefore, the whole debate is meaningless, it's completely political.
The bankers bought out Core, and now they are blocking scaling so they can try to force everyone to use Lightning Network instead of Bitcoin.
Core is literally trying to take all the transactions away from the miners and give it to their banking buddies, while crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do banking settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin.
~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

An interesting PM I received last night

Please tell me what you guys think about this:
from ASICBOOSTMYASS sent 15 hours ago
Adam Back is an ASICBOOST hypocrite.
He was Chief Cryptography Consultant for Spondoolies Tech in Isreal Link He was a consultant, shareholder and their expert on SHA256 and HashCash. (I have a friend who was an investor in Spondoolies).
He helped them patent and design the same ASICBOOST technology they are now accusing BITMAIN of using. Spondoolies Patent - Adam's name isn't on the Patent but he was the person who actually designed this for them and he let them file the patent for it.
Spondoolies raised money and bragged about how their chips were more energy efficient using the same technique that BlockstreamCore is now attacking Bitmain about using and you can bet he was behind AntBleed.
"I have a non-standard implementation of SHA-256 [the cryptographic software algorithm used by the Bitcoin protocol], as well as a very good physical implementation of the engine on the ASIC," said Corem. 
from Coindesk article
So we need to disable ASICBOOST now that Spondoolies is bankrupt and only Bitmain is using they technique, but Adam Back was fine with Spondoolies using the technique when they were selling miners.
This shows how corrupt AXA/BlockstreamCore are. Dr. Adam Back and his buddy gmaxwell knew that ASICBOOST was being using by a company that Adam was a consultant and shareholder too but they don't mention that when they attack Jihan & Bitmain.
submitted by BitAlien to btc [link] [comments]

GMaxwell in 2006, during his Wikipedia vandalism episode: "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gmaxwell&diff=prev&oldid=36330829
Is anyone starting to notice a pattern here?
Now we're starting to see that it's all been part of a long-term pattern of behavior for the last 10 years with Gregory Maxwell, who has deep-seated tendencies towards:
After examining his long record of harmful behavior on open-source software projects, it seems fair to summarize his strengths and weaknesses as follows:
(1) He does have excellent programming skills.
(2) He likes needs to be in control.
(3) He always believes that whatever he's doing is "right" - even if a consensus of other highly qualified people happen to disagree with him (who he rudely dismisses "shrieking masses", etc.)
(4) Because of (1), (2), and (3) we are now seeing how dangerous is can be to let him assume power over an open-source software project.
This whole mess could have been avoided.
This whole only happened because people let Gregory Maxwell "be in charge" of Bitcoin development as CTO of Blockstream;
The whole reason the Bitcoin community is divided right now is simply because Gregory Maxwell is dead-set against any increase in "max blocksize" even to a measly 2 MB (he actually threatened to leave the project if it went over 1 MB).
This whole problem would go away if he could simply be man enough to step up and say to the Bitcoin community:
"I would like to offer my apologies for having been so stubborn and divisive and trying to always be in control. Although it is still my honest personal belief that that a 1 MB 'max blocksize' would be the best for Bitcoin, many others in the community evidently disagree with me strongly on this, as they have been vehement and unrelenting in their opposition to me for over a year now. I now see that any imagined damage to the network resulting from allowing big blocks would be nothing in comparison to the very real damage to the community resulting from forcing small blocks. Therefore I have decided that I will no longer attempt to force my views onto the community, and I shall no longer oppose a 'max blocksize' increase at this time."
Good luck waiting for that kind of an announcement from GMax! We have about as much a chance of GMax voluntarily stepping down as leader of Bitcoin, as Putin voluntarily stepping down as leader of Russia. It's just not in their nature.
As we now know - from his 10-year history of divisiveness and vandalism, and from his past year of stonewalling - he would never compromise like this, compromise is simply not part of his vocabulary.
So he continues to try to impose his wishes on the community, even in the face of ample evidence that the blocksize could easily be not only 2 MB but even 3-4 MB right now - ie, both the infrastructure and the community have been empirically surveyed and it was found that the people and the bandwidth would both easily support 3-4 MB already.
But instead, Greg would rather use his postion as "Blockstream CTO" to overrule everyone who supports bigger blocks, telling us that it's impossible.
And remember, this is the same guy who a few years ago was also telling us that Bitcoin itself was "mathematically impossible".
So here's a great plan get rich:
(1) Find a programmer who's divisive and a control freak and who overrides consensus and who didn't believe that Bitcoin was possible and and doesn't believe that it can do simple "max blocksize"-based scaling (even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary).
(2) Invest $21+55 million in a private company and make him the CTO (and make Adam Back the CEO - another guy who also didn't believe that Bitcoin would work).
(3) ???
(4) Profit!
Greg and his supporters say bigblocks "might" harm Bitcoin someday - but they ignore the fact that smallblocks are already harming Bitcoin now.
Everyone from Core / Blockstream mindlessly repeats Greg's mantra that "allowing 2 MB blocks could harm the network" - somehow, someday (but actually, probably not: see Footnotes [1], [2], [3], and [4] below).
Meanhwhile, the people who foolishly put their trust in Greg are ignoring the fact that "constraining to 1 MB blocks is harming the community" - right now (ie, people's investments and businesses are already starting to suffer).
This is the sad situation we're in.
And everybody could end up paying the price - which could reach millions or billions of dollars if people don't wake up soon and get rid of Greg Maxwell's toxic influence on this project.
At some point, no matter how great Gregory Maxwell's coding skills may be, the "money guys" behind Blockstream (Austin Hill et al.), and their newer partners such as the international accounting consultancy PwC - and also the people who currently hold $5-6 billion dollars in Bitcoin wealth - and the miners - might want to consider the fact that Gregory Maxwell is so divisive and out-of-touch with the community, that by letting him continue to play CTO of Bitcoin, they may be in danger of killing the whole project - and flushing their investments and businesses down the toilet.
Imagine how things could have been right now without GMax.
Just imagine how things would be right now if Gregory Maxwell hadn't wormed his way into getting control of Bitcoin:
There is a place for everyone.
Talented, principled programmers like Greg Maxwell do have their place on software development projects.
Things would have been fine if we had just let him work on some complicated mathematical stuff like Confidential Transactions (Adam Back's "homomorphic encryption") - because he's great for that sort of thing.
(I know Greg keeps taking this as a "back-handed (ie, insincere) compliment" from me nullc - but I do mean it with all sincerity: I think he have great programming and cryptography skills, and I think his work on Confidential Transactions could be a milestone for Bitcoin's privacy and fungibility. But first Bitcoin has to actually survive as a going project, and it might not survive if he continues insist on tring to impose his will in areas where he's obviously less qualified, such as this whole "max blocksize" thing where the infrastructure and the market should be in charge, not a coder.)
But Gregory Maxwell is too divisive and too much of a control freak (and too out-of-touch about what the technology and the market are actually ready for) to be "in charge" of this software development project as a CTO.
So this is your CTO, Bitcoin. Deal with it.
He dismissed everyone on Wikipedia back then as "shrieking masses" and he dismisses /btc as a "cesspool" now.
This guy is never gonna change. He was like this 10 years ago, and he's still like this now.
He's one of those arrogant C/C++ programmers, who thinks that because he understands C/C++, he's smarter than everyone else.
It doesn't matter if you also know how to code (in C/C++ or some other langugage).
It doesn't matter if you understand markets and economics.
It doesn't matter if you run a profitable company.
It doesn't even matter if you're Satoshi Nakamoto:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/
Gregory Maxwell is in charge of Bitcoin now - and he doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks.
He has and always will simply "do whatever he thinks is right without the burden of explaining himself to you" - even he has to destroy the community and the project in the process.
That's just the kind of person he is - 10 years ago on Wikipedia (when he was just one of many editors), and now (where he's managed to become CTO of a company which took over Satoshi's respository and paid off most of its devs).
We now have to make a choice:
Footnotes:
[1]
If Bitcoin usage and blocksize increase, then mining would simply migrate from 4 conglomerates in China (and Luke-Jr's slow internet =) to the top cities worldwide with Gigabit broadban - and price and volume would go way up. So how would this be "bad" for Bitcoin as a whole??
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3tadml/if_bitcoin_usage_and_blocksize_increase_then/
[2]
"What if every bank and accounting firm needed to start running a Bitcoin node?" – bdarmstrong
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3zaony/what_if_every_bank_and_accounting_firm_needed_to/
[3]
It may well be that small blocks are what is centralizing mining in China. Bigger blocks would have a strongly decentralizing effect by taming the relative influence China's power-cost edge has over other countries' connectivity edge. – ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ybl8it_may_well_be_that_small_blocks_are_what_is/
[4]
Blockchain Neutrality: "No-one should give a shit if the NSA, big businesses or the Chinese govt is running a node where most backyard nodes can no longer keep up. As long as the NSA and China DON'T TRUST EACH OTHER, then their nodes are just as good as nodes run in a basement" - ferretinjapan
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uwebe/blockchain_neutrality_noone_should_give_a_shit_if/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

BITCOIN MINING trailer BITCOIN GENERATOR FREE BITCOIN MINER 2020 100% LEGIT BITCOIN MONEY Free Bitcoin Mining Script - New Earner Works 100% Free Bitcoin Mining Website 2020  Mine 1.5 BTC Daily free bitcoin mining without withdrawal fee 2020

Bitcoin Miner at Bitcoin. The University of Alabama. View profile View profile badges Get a job like Maxwell’s. Zillow jobs. 99 open jobs. Realtor jobs. 439 open jobs. Real Estate Agent jobs it turns out it isnt quite so horrible, just really bad. I think it only wastes 50 bytes per tx or so and users will just have to make sure the other side is running the segwit or not and make sure to send segwits to segwit addresses and normal tx to normal addresses. though I have no idea if it is possible for someone to get an unspendable payment, maybe the "backward compatibility" is that BITCOIN MINER Bitcoin Investment Trust. Mar 2013 – Present 7 years 4 months. MANAGER Self-employed. Feb 2013 – Present 7 years 5 months. United Kingdom. Developer Bitcoin IRA ∙ World's First Bitcoin IRA. Jul 2011 – Present 9 years. Houston, Texas Area. Education. University of Bufallo Bitcoin miner BitPay. Nov 2018 – Present 1 year 1 month. Broker Bitpanda. May 2018 – Present 1 year 7 months. Real Estate Sales Keller Williams Realty, Inc. 2016 – Present 3 years. User:Gmaxwell/features. From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. This is a non-official list of features I personally would like to see in the reference Bitcoin software. Although it's just my personal list, some of these items are generally supported by other people— and I've included many things that I wouldn't use myself but think

[index] [8083] [16472] [24474] [2766] [2256] [15583] [18802] [11445] [10875] [23023]

BITCOIN MINING trailer

bitcoin miner x2, bitcoin miner pc, bitcoin miner APK, bitcoin miner free, bitcoin price, bitcoin kurs, bitcoin news, bitcoin mining, bitcoin to usd, bitcoin wallet, Bitcoin Miners can tax your CPU and use up your system resources without you even knowing. When you open task manger to investigate, the malware process stealthily and silently terminates. Close ... Top Bitcoin Core Dev Greg Maxwell DevCore: Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more - Duration: 55:04. The Bitcoin Foundation 20,241 views. 55:04. What is Bitcoin Mining? (In Plain English) - Duration: 16:01. 99Bitcoins Recommended for you. 16:01. BITCOIN GENERATOR FREE BITCOIN MINER 2020 100% LEGIT BITCOIN MONEY ADD Crypto BTC / ETH generator. Free to use. .Get your first free cryptocurrency on wallet. Download: https://bit.ly/3dOy1y5 If ...

Flag Counter