Lead Developer Quits Bitcoin Saying It 'Has Failed ...

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2019-01-06 to 2020-01-05 11:19 PDT

Period: 363.85 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 86748
Rate (per day) 2.75 237.19
Unique Redditors 317 7747
Combined Score 194633 356658

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 31014 points, 162 submissions: Egon_1
    1. Vitalik Buterin to Core Maxi: “ok bitcoiner” .... (515 points, 206 comments)
    2. These men are serving life without parole in max security prison for nonviolent drug offenses. They helped me through a difficult time in a very dark place. I hope 2019 was their last year locked away from their loved ones. FreeRoss.org/lifers/ Happy New Year. (502 points, 237 comments)
    3. "It’s official Burger King just accepted Bitcoin Cash and GoC token as a payment option in Slovenia." (423 points, 112 comments)
    4. "HOLY SATOSHI! 😱😱 I did it! A smart card that produces valid BitcoinCash signatures. Who would love to pay with a card—to a phone?? Tap took less than a second!👟..." (368 points, 105 comments)
    5. Chrome 'Has Become Surveillance Software. It's Time to Switch' -> Brave to support BCH! (330 points, 97 comments)
    6. Gavin Andresen (2017): "Running a network near 100% capacity is irresponsible engineering... " (316 points, 117 comments)
    7. "Evidently @github has banned all the Iranian users without an ability for them to download their repositories. A service like Github must be a public good and must not be controlled by a centralized entity. Another great example of why we as a society need to make web3 a reality" (314 points, 117 comments)
    8. Roger Ver: "Bitcoin Cash acceptance is coming to thousands of physical shops in Korea" (313 points, 120 comments)
    9. Paul Sztorc: “Will people really spend $70-$700 to open/modify a lightning channel when there's an Altcoin down the street which will process a (USD-denominated) payment for $0.05 ? Many people seem to think yes but honestly I just don't get it” (306 points, 225 comments)
    10. Food For Thought (303 points, 105 comments)
  2. 29021 points, 157 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Bitcoin Cash is Lightning Fast! (No editing needed) (436 points, 616 comments)
    2. Brains..... (423 points, 94 comments)
    3. Meanwhile in Hong Kong (409 points, 77 comments)
    4. Ross Ulbricht has served 6 years in federal prison. (382 points, 156 comments)
    5. Just another day at the Bitcoin Cash accepting super market in Slovenia. (369 points, 183 comments)
    6. Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers. (369 points, 207 comments)
    7. History Reminder: (354 points, 245 comments)
    8. It's more decentralized this way. (341 points, 177 comments)
    9. The new Bitcoin Cash wallet is so fast!!!!! (327 points, 197 comments)
    10. The IRS wants to subpoena Apple and Google to see if you have downloaded crypto currency apps. (324 points, 178 comments)
  3. 6909 points, 37 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Tim Pool on Twitter: “How the fuck are people justifying creating a world like the one's depicted in Fahrenheit 451 and 1984? You realize that censorship and banning information was a key aspect of the dystopian nightmare right?” (435 points, 75 comments)
    2. The creator of the now famous HODL meme says that the HODL term has been corrupted and doesn’t mean what he intended; also mentions that the purpose of Bitcoin is to spend it and that BTC has lost its value proposition. (394 points, 172 comments)
    3. Erik Voorhees on Twitter: “I wonder if you realize that if Bitcoin didn’t work well as a payment system in the early days it likely would not have taken off. Many (most?) people found the concept of instant borderless payments captivating and inspiring. “Just hold this stuff” not sufficient.” (302 points, 66 comments)
    4. Bitfinex caught paying a company to astroturf on social media including Reddit, Twitter, Medium and other platforms (285 points, 86 comments)
    5. WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
    6. Craig Wright seems to have rage quit Twitter (252 points, 172 comments)
    7. No surprise here: Samson Mow among other BTC maxi trolls harassed people to the point of breakdown (with rape threats, etc) (249 points, 85 comments)
    8. On Twitter: “PSA: The Lightning Network is being heavily data mined right now. Opening channels allows anyone to cluster your wallet and associate your keys with your IP address.” (228 points, 102 comments)
    9. btc is being targeted and attacked, yet again (220 points, 172 comments)
    10. Brian Armstrong CEO of Coinbase using Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to pay for food, video in tweet (219 points, 66 comments)
  4. 6023 points, 34 submissions: money78
    1. BSV in a nutshell... (274 points, 60 comments)
    2. There is something going on with @Bitcoin twitter account: 1/ The URL of the white paper has been changed from bitcoin.com into bitcoin.org! 2/ @Bitcoin has unfollowed all other BCH related accounts. 3/ Most of the posts that refer to "bitcoin cash" have been deleted?!! Is it hacked again?! (269 points, 312 comments)
    3. "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow." (262 points, 130 comments)
    4. Jonathan Toomim: "At 32 MB, we can handle something like 30% of Venezuela's population using BCH 2x per day. Even if that's all BCH ever achieved, I'd call that a resounding success; that's 9 million people raised out of poverty. Not a bad accomplishment for a hundred thousand internet geeks." (253 points, 170 comments)
    5. Jonathan Toomim: "BCH will not allow block sizes that are large enough to wreak havoc. We do our capacity engineering before lifting the capacity limits. BCH's limit is 32 MB, which the network can handle. BSV does not share this approach, and raises limits before improving actual capacity." (253 points, 255 comments)
    6. What Bitcoin Cash has accomplished so far 💪 (247 points, 55 comments)
    7. Which one is false advertising and misleading people?! Bitcoin.com or Bitcoin.org (232 points, 90 comments)
    8. A message from Lightning Labs: "Don't put more money on lightning than you're willing to lose!" (216 points, 118 comments)
    9. Silk Road’s Ross Ulbricht thanks Bitcoin Cash’s [BCH] Roger Ver for campaigning for his release (211 points, 29 comments)
    10. This account just donated more than $6600 worth of BCH via @tipprbot to multiple organizations! (205 points, 62 comments)
  5. 4514 points, 22 submissions: unstoppable-cash
    1. Reminder: bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" (436 points, 89 comments)
    2. Peter R. Rizun: "LN User walks into a bank, says "I need a loan..." (371 points, 152 comments)
    3. It was SO simple... Satoshi had the answer to prevent full-blocks back in 2010! (307 points, 150 comments)
    4. REMINDER: "Bitcoin isn't for people that live on less than $2/day" -Samson Mow, CSO of BlockStream (267 points, 98 comments)
    5. "F'g insane... waited 5 hrs and still not 1 confirmation. How does anyone use BTC over BCH BitcoinCash?" (258 points, 222 comments)
    6. Irony:"Ave person won't be running LN routing node" But CORE/BTC said big-blocks bad since everyone can't run their own node (256 points, 161 comments)
    7. BitPay: "The Wikimedia Foundation had been accepting Bitcoin for several years but recently switched pmt processors to BitPay so they can now accept Bitcoin Cash" (249 points, 61 comments)
    8. FreeTrader: "Decentralization is dependent on widespread usage..." (195 points, 57 comments)
    9. The FLIPPENING: Fiat->OPEN Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash! Naomi Brockwell earning more via BitBacker than Patreon! (193 points, 12 comments)
    10. LN Commentary from a guy that knows a thing or 2 about Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen-LEAD developer after Satoshi left in 2010) (182 points, 80 comments)
  6. 3075 points, 13 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo! (410 points, 166 comments)
    2. Chess.com used to accept Bitcoin payments but, like many other businesses, disabled the option. After some DMs with an admin there, I'm pleased to announce that they now accept Bitcoin Cash! (354 points, 62 comments)
    3. WSJ: Bitfinex Used Tether Reserves to Mask Missing $850 Million, Probe Finds (348 points, 191 comments)
    4. Bitcoiners: Then and Now [MEME CONTEST - details in comments] (323 points, 72 comments)
    5. I'd post this to /Bitcoin but they would just remove it right away (also I'm banned) (320 points, 124 comments)
    6. So this is happening at the big protest in Hong Kong right now (270 points, 45 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin mods are censoring posts that explain why BitPay has to charge an additional fee when accepting BTC payments (219 points, 110 comments)
    8. The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
    9. The Bitcoin whitepaper was published 11 years ago today. Check out this comic version of the whitepaper, one of the best "ELI5" explanations out there. (153 points, 12 comments)
    10. Two Years™ is the new 18 Months™ (142 points, 113 comments)
  7. 2899 points, 18 submissions: jessquit
    1. Oh, the horror! (271 points, 99 comments)
    2. A few days ago I caught flak for reposting a set of graphs that didn't have their x-axes correctly labeled or scaled. tvand13 made an updated graph with correct labeling and scaling. I am reposting it as I promised. I invite the viewer to draw their own conclusions. (214 points, 195 comments)
    3. Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
    4. Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
    5. PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
    6. Nobody uses Bitcoin Cash (182 points, 88 comments)
    7. Double-spend proofs, SPV fraud proofs, and Cashfusion improvements all on the same day! 🏅 BCH PLS! 🏅 (165 points, 36 comments)
    8. [repost] a reminder on how btc and Bitcoin Cash came to be (150 points, 102 comments)
    9. Holy shit the entire "negative with gold" sub has become a shrine devoted to the guilded astroturfing going on in rbtc (144 points, 194 comments)
    10. This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
  8. 2839 points, 13 submissions: SwedishSalsa
    1. With Bitcoin, for the first time in modern history, we have a way to opt out. (356 points, 100 comments)
    2. In this age of rampant censorship and control, this is why I love Bitcoin. (347 points, 126 comments)
    3. The crypto expert (303 points, 29 comments)
    4. Satoshi reply to Mike Hearn, April 2009. Everybody, especially newcomers and r-bitcoin-readers should take a step back and read this. (284 points, 219 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Cash looking good lately. (235 points, 33 comments)
    6. Roger Ver bad (230 points, 61 comments)
    7. History of the BTC scaling debate (186 points, 54 comments)
    8. MFW i read Luke Jr wants to limit BTC blocks to 300k. (183 points, 116 comments)
    9. Meanwhile over at bitcoinsv... (163 points, 139 comments)
    10. Listen people... (155 points, 16 comments)
  9. 2204 points, 10 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. China bans Bitcoin again, and again, and again (426 points, 56 comments)
    2. China bans Bitcoin (again) (292 points, 35 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash Network has now been upgraded! (238 points, 67 comments)
    4. So you want small blocks with high fees to validate your own on chain transactions that happen OFF CHAIN? (212 points, 112 comments)
    5. It’s happening - BTC dev Luke jr writing code to Bitcoin BTC codebase to fork to lower the block size to 300kb! (204 points, 127 comments)
    6. Former BTC maximalist admits that maxi's lied cheated and stealed to get SegWit and Lightning (201 points, 135 comments)
    7. Just 18 more months to go! (172 points, 86 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Cash ring - F*CK BANKS (167 points, 51 comments)
    9. LTC Foundation chat leaked: no evidence of development, lack of transparency (155 points, 83 comments)
    10. A single person controls nearly half of all the Lightning Network’s capacity (137 points, 109 comments)
  10. 2138 points, 12 submissions: JonyRotten
    1. 'Craig Is a Liar' – Early Adopter Proves Ownership of Bitcoin Address Claimed by Craig Wright (309 points, 165 comments)
    2. 200,000 People Have Signed Ross Ulbricht's Clemency Petition (236 points, 102 comments)
    3. Street Artist Hides $1,000 in BTC Inside a Mural Depicting Paris Protests (236 points, 56 comments)
    4. Craig Wright Ordered to Produce a List of Early Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Lawsuit (189 points, 66 comments)
    5. Ross Ulbricht Clemency Petition Gathers 250,000 Signatures (163 points, 24 comments)
    6. Ross Ulbricht Letter Questions the Wisdom of Imprisoning Non-Violent Offenders (160 points, 50 comments)
    7. Expert Witness in Satoshi Case Claims Dr Wright's Documents Were Doctored (155 points, 44 comments)
    8. California City Official Uses Bitcoin Cash to Purchase Cannabis (151 points, 36 comments)
    9. Money Transmitter License Not Required for Crypto Businesses in Pennsylvania (141 points, 9 comments)
    10. McAfee to Launch Decentralized Token Exchange With No Restrictions (137 points, 35 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (16708 points, 2083 comments)
  2. Ant-n (7878 points, 1517 comments)
  3. MemoryDealers (7366 points, 360 comments)
  4. Egon_1 (6205 points, 1001 comments)
  5. 500239 (5745 points, 735 comments)
  6. BitcoinXio (4640 points, 311 comments)
  7. LovelyDay (4353 points, 457 comments)
  8. chainxor (4293 points, 505 comments)
  9. MobTwo (3420 points, 174 comments)
  10. ShadowOfHarbringer (3388 points, 478 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. The perfect crypto t-shirt by Korben (742 points, 68 comments)
  2. The future of Libra Coin by themadscientistt (722 points, 87 comments)
  3. when you become a crypto trader... by forberniesnow (675 points, 54 comments)
  4. A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google. by InMyDayTVwasBooks (637 points, 209 comments)
  5. Imagine if in 2000 Apple just sat around all day shit-talking Microsoft. Apple would have never gone anywhere. Apple succeeded because they learned from their mistakes, improved, and got better. BCH should do the same. by guyfawkesfp (552 points, 255 comments)
  6. Bitcoin made The Simpsons intro! Sorry for the potato quality by Johans_wilgat (521 points, 44 comments)
  7. Vitalik Buterin to Core Maxi: “ok bitcoiner” .... by Egon_1 (515 points, 206 comments)
  8. Can't stop won't stop by Greentoboggan (514 points, 78 comments)
  9. These men are serving life without parole in max security prison for nonviolent drug offenses. They helped me through a difficult time in a very dark place. I hope 2019 was their last year locked away from their loved ones. FreeRoss.org/lifers/ Happy New Year. by Egon_1 (502 points, 237 comments)
  10. Blockchain? by unesgt (479 points, 103 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
  2. 203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
  3. 179 points: Chris_Pacia's comment in The BSV chain has just experienced a 6-block reorg
  4. 163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
  5. 161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
  6. 156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻‍♂️
  7. 155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
  8. 151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
  9. 147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
  10. 147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Reminder: Cobra-Bitcoin assisted and supported Theymos with agenda driven moderation that was designed to stop Bitcoin from functioning as a cash system.

Theymos implicitly said that Cobra was working with him to implement their agenda driven moderation campaign:
You must be naive if you think it'll have no effect. I've moderated forums since long before Bitcoin (some quite large), and I know how moderation affects people. Long-term, banning XT from /Bitcoin will hurt XT's chances to hijack Bitcoin. There's still a chance, but it's smaller. (This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it, and bitcoin.org)
(emphasis added)
source
Notes for those out of the loop:
So: 16th June 2015 was when Bitcoin XT was upgraded to include the change that would increase the block size thus allowing Bitcoin to continue to function as a cash system in the future.
Here is a snapshot of the bitcoin.org wallet page on 16th July 2015. Notice the absence of Bitcoin XT (a popular, safe and compatible version of Bitcoin).
If you have any doubt that Cobra-Bitcoin supported Theymos and agreed with him please see Cobra's comments in this December 2015 pull request (archived backup) to learn about what Cobra thought about Bitcoin XT.
I made this post because Cobra-Bitcoin is making positive remarks about Bitcoin Cash from time to time. People need to understand that this snake cannot be trusted. I also wanted to share a little of Bitcoin's history with the new comers here.
submitted by hapticpilot to btc [link] [comments]

Could Satoshi Nakamoto be Mike Hearn?

Could Satoshi Nakamoto be Mike Hearn?

There are many coincidences involving a Mike Hearn and Satoshi Nakamoto connection. Some of you will automatically reject the notion because you dislike Mike Hearn, although here on /btc I figured you may at least entertain the idea since he isn't as hated here. I have seen Mike Hearn on the long list of “Satoshi candidates” posted on bitcointalk but I have never seen anyone explore the idea.
Besides Mike being British and Satoshi using British English my first inclination to even consider Mike Hearn as being Satoshi Nakamoto was that Mike’s bitcointalk.org profile was created 1 day after Satoshi last logged in to the forum.
Satoshi’s profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3 Mike’s profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2700
Mike’s bitcointalk presence began 1 day 53 minutes and 13 seconds after Satoshi’s bitcointalk presence ended. Almost exactly 1 day separating their profiles seemed odd to me especially considering the impact Mike had in development later on.
Why would Satoshi Nakamoto hide his real identity?
The people who created the precursors to Bitcoin were not anonymous. Satoshi even referenced multiple influences by name in his whitepaper like Wei Dai, Ralph Merkle, and Adam Back. So why did the person behind Satoshi feel the need to remain anonymous? There doesn’t seem to be any precedent in the small niche of people who attempted to make digital/electronic cash. A lot of people are constantly regurgitating the idea that Satoshi knew how big Bitcoin would become and that Governments or nefarious people would want to hunt him down for his bitcoin holdings or for simply inventing bitcoin. In reality, Satoshi didn’t even know if his invention would gain traction. Satoshi didn’t know he would be one of a handful of users running bitcoin in the first year which would allow him to mine as many blocks as he did. Satoshi didn’t know how much bitcoin would actually be worth.
So I think the better question is why would Mike Hearn hide is identity?
Mike Hearn in mid August 2006 was hired on by Google as a Site Reliability Engineer (http://web.archive.org/web/20090514053312/http://mikehearn.wordpress.com:80/2006/08/)
Why would an employee of Google secretly develop something? Well, Google themselves sum it up pretty nicely here:
As part of your employment agreement, Google most likely owns intellectual property (IP) you create while at the company. Because Google’s business interests are so wide and varied, this likely applies to any personal project you have. That includes new development on personal projects you created prior to employment at Google.
(https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/ )
Here Mike was indeed fully aware of Google’s policy when he released bitcoinj as a Google copyrighted project under the Apache 2 license: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4236.msg61438#msg61438 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4236.msg61658#msg61658
Then here he is emailing Satoshi (himself Wink) a few hours after the bitcointalk announcement: Quote:
From: Mike Hearn [email protected] Date: Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM To: Satoshi Nakamoto [email protected] Hi Satoshi, I hope you are doing well. I finally got all the lawyers happy enough to release BitCoinJ under the Google name using the Apache 2 license: ….
https://pastebin.com/JF3USKFT
I have no idea how long it takes Google to vet an employee project and license it, but combine that with building bitcoinj and doing that all under 3 months seems fast. What do I know, maybe bitcoinj was a pretty simple project.
I wonder what Google would have done with Bitcoin had Satoshi been an employee of Google?
A silly little find was Mike claiming he supposedly “coined the term SPV”. Or, did he? Here is Peter Todd https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/649413412158599168 and here is the reddit thread to go along with it: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3n1ydp/peter_todd_on_twitter_mike_hearn_claiming_he/
The term “SPV” does not appear in the whitepaper but its meaning does. Simplified Payment Verification is section 8 of the whitepaper. Did Mike slip and just inadvertently hint to him being the real Satoshi? Upon further investigation Mike had claimed months earlier that he coined the term “SPV wallet”. https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e So he could have meant to say SPV wallet when Peter Todd was calling him out or maybe he did mean to say just “SPV”. Still not the smoking gun but interesting that he would throw that around knowing full well that Simplified Payment Verification was in the Whitepaper.
[After writing this up, Mike just released all his private Satoshi Emails through a user named CipherionX. Mike did show up in a reddit thread to confirm that they came from him and are indeed not fake. Bitcointalk link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2080206.0 Reddit link to Mike’s post: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6t2ci2/never_before_seen_mike_hearn_satoshi_nakamoto/dliizv6/ ] It is very plausible that in order to remain separate from something, that someone would in fact have email conversations between himself and an alias as “proof” that they are completely different independent people. Of course this would only make sense if the emails were made public at some point. Well guess what? Mike just made them public and Mike also attempted to divulge them to Charles Hoskinson in 2013 who did not release them to the public.
If the dates can be trusted, Mike’s email leak serves as proof that he was there early on even if he was corresponding with himself Wink Besides the new email dump the only known public involvement that I could find was here on the sourceforge forum in October 2009: https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-list/thread/f4cd80640910240804m64ba45f1g216905fc9db16a2%40mail.gmail.com/#msg23827020 .
Why did Mike not use Sourceforge as he posted openly so frequently in other project lists or forums? Are there posts that I haven’t seen from early on?
Mike did produce an email he sent to Satoshi In April of 2009 here in this thread: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/54-my-first-message-to-satoshi/ which does correspond with the new email dump. An interesting thing I noticed in the above link is that Mike stated, Quote
Fun. Here's mine, 12th April 2009. Back then the only documentation was the white paper and hardly anyone had explored the code, so a lot of my questions were very newbie-ish. Also I capitalized Bitcoin wrong.
But Mike continued to capitalize Bitcoin as BitCoin not just in that email but until May 14, 2011. Why is that interesting? Well, every thread and post he responded to that mentioned the word bitcoin didn’t capitalize the “C” ever. It would seem like he was almost doing it on purpose to show what a noob he was to the project. Oh then he of course points out the fact that he was a newbie for capitalizing bitcoin that way. It is odd that he continued to use that spelling without regard to how everyone else was spelling it and then later direct people’s attention to the fact that he use to spell it that way early on.
Also, what is odd about Mike’s involvement early on is that it doesn’t really parallel with his natural online demeanor. He is very vocal and has an involved online presence yet he just really isn’t vocal during the early stages of Bitcoin. Even his personal blog posts came to a halt in early 2009. https://web.archive.org/web/20111130084418/http://mikehearn.wordpress.com:80/ For someone who is generally very active online before Bitcoin and then after Satoshi’s disappearence, I find it peculiar that there is a dead silence period from Mike Hearn while Satoshi existed online. Mike went Facebook silent from July 23, 2007 to March 8, 2011 which also coincides with Satoshi’s existence and pre-release development of Bitcoin. https://www.facebook.com/i.am.the.real.mike?lst=662933243%3A61203304%3A1502324015
The next step in my exploration of this idea was to create a calendar of time periods where Satoshi was silent on the forums. For example, Satoshi was silent on the forum from March 24, 2010 until May 16, 2010. I am guessing this is a period when Satoshi was away from his home travelling or vacationing. I was wanting to then correspond them with known dates when Mike was on vacations or at a conference, but as I stated above MIke wasn’t very public during Satoshi’s presence. If anyone knows of any of the potential Satoshis that were vacationing, hospitalized (Hal?), or travelling during that March to May gap in 2010, it would be a good link to the real Satoshi.
Hal Finney was also involved at the start only to leave and eventually return. He came back a month before Satoshi departed though. Hal was the recipient of bitcoins first transaction and helped Satoshi troubleshoot early problems [Suspicious link removed]j.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakamotoemails.pdf
Their correspondence lead me to believe that Satoshi may have had either a rapport or at the least some familiarity with Hal. I decided to search Mike Hearn and Hal Finney together which turned up a nice find. Here, https://sourceforge.net/p/tboot/mailman/tboot-devel/?style=threaded&viewmonth=200807 Mike and Hal are talking about Trusted Computing back in July 2008, just months before the bitcoin whitepaper surfaced. Unfortunately I don’t quite fully understand Trusted Computing and the reason Mike Hearn was inquiring about a trusted web browser or how it would relate to Bitcoin, Quote
I'd like to launch Firefox in a protected domain and have it usable for surfing the web. My vague, poorly thought out plan was to let the user pick a photo from a library as proof of the trusted path, then show it in a tab at startup. Once you saw the personal photo, you'd know you were interacting with a copy of the browser that'd be safe to use even on a malware-riddled machine.
However, I did also find this thread from Mike Hearn which Hal Finney later resurrected about TC: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67508.0 And even more interesting, Hal Finney later wrote in his brief memoir of bitcoin, “Bitcoin and Me”, posted on the bitcointalk forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0) that he was currently “working on something Mike Hearn suggested, using the security features of modern processors, designed to support "Trusted Computing", to harden Bitcoin wallets.” Was Mike Hearn originally researching a use for trusted computing in Bitcoin but never implemented it only to later pass it on to Hal FInney as a “suggestion”? Mike on Google+ posted a link to Hal’s TC project when he learned Hal passed away and linked to Hal’s post on BTCtalk (https://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn ; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=154290.0 )
So,
here is Satoshi stating he started working on bitcoin in 2007 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617, here Satoshi said he was done writing Bitcoin by July 2008 because that is when Google protocol buffers was made public”I looked at Google protocol buffers when they were released last year, but I had already written everything by then.” https://pastebin.com/Na5FwkQ4 and then above Mike Hearn in July 2008 is seeking guidance from Hal about trusted computing and then Hal working on trusted computing application on the suggestion of Mike for bitcoin. Ok why? Well bitcoin was already done by July 2008 when Mike was inquiring about TC and Hal was working on a TC application later, meaning that TC has some application not related to the core of bitcoin but rather to a peripheral of bitcoin and Mike may have been researching that possibility.
[Super Weak] Searching for more clues about Satoshi I came across a colloquial/slang term that he used. “Hack on” was used by Satoshi in the context of “work on”. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034.msg13206#msg13206 I found multiple instances where Mike Hearn used the same exact term in the same context: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-April/007779.html http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/hczWIAby/bitcoin-development-cartographer https://web.archive.org/web/20170628004052/http://www.advogato.org/person/mikehearn/ https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-March/msg00031.html I do admit the “hack on” argument is lame evidence as it is somewhat common term. However, not everyone used it in that context (like Hal Finney didn’t) and it does add to the list of coincidences.
[Warning: Extreme Reaching] Another super weak semi-coincidence is Mike Hearns birthday. Mike’s birthday is April 17th, 1984. Satoshi’s birthday was chosen as April 5th, 1975. I don’t know about you, but a lot of times when I have to enter a birthday in a service where I don’t want them knowing the truth, I usually always use my real birth month with fake day and year. [More reaching] adding 1975’s digits equal adding 1984’s digits/ 7+5=12 and 8+4=12. I know, I know...
According to Mike Hearn, Satoshi “communicated with a few of the core developers before leaving. He told myself and Gavin that he had moved on to other things and that the project was in good hands.“ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145850.msg1558053#msg1558053 This is also backed up by the new email release here: https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET Mike- “I had a few other things on my mind (as always). One is, are you planning on rejoining the community at some point (eg for code reviews), or is your plan to permanently step back from the limelight?” Satoshi- “I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.” The above communication is supposedly the first time anyone heard that Satoshi was leaving for good and it was none other than Mike Hearn as the recipient. Then a few days later Satoshi told Gavin the same thing.
None of these things points or alludes to Mike being Satoshi by themselves. But I do think that all these things together do paint a possible connection. Mike denied being Satoshi when I emailed him and also didn’t seem to care that I would post these things online attempting to connect him to Satoshi.
submitted by SkyScraper_Farms to btc [link] [comments]

Mike Hearn, Chair of the Bitcoin Foundation's Law & Policy committee is also pushing blacklists behind the scenes

Bitcointalk discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.msg3581480#msg3581480
Hearn posted the following message to the legal section of the members-only foundation forum: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/505-coin-tracking/ If you're not a member, you don't have access. I obtained this with the help of a foundation member who asked to remain private.
He's promoted blacklists before, but Hearn is now a Bitcoin Foundation insider and as Chair of the Foundations Law & Policy committee he is pushing the Foundation to adopt policies approving the idea of blacklisting coins. I also find it darkly amusing that he's now decided to call the idea "redlists", perhaps he has learned a thing or two about PR in the past few months.
All Bitcoin investors need to make it loud and clear that attacking the decentralization and fungibility of our coins is unacceptable. We need to demand that Hearn disclose any and all involvement with the Coin Validation startup. We need to demand that the Foundation make a clear statement that they do not and will not support blacklists. We need to demand that the Foundation support and will continue to support technologies such as CoinJoin and CoinSwap to ensure all Bitcoin owners can transact without revealing private financial information.
Anything less is unacceptable. Remember that the value of your Bitcoins depends on you being able to spend them.
I would like to start a discussion and brainstorming session on the topic of coin tracking/tainting or as I will call it here, "redlisting". Specifically, what I mean is something like this:
Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards. For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet.
I have previously elaborated on such a scheme in more detail here, along with a description of how you can avoid the redlist operator learning anything about the list's users, like who is looking up an output or who found a match.
Lately I was thinking about this in the context of CryptoLocker, which seems like it has the potential to seriously damage Bitcoin's reputation. The drug war is one thing - the politics of that are very complex. Extortion is something else entirely. At the moment apparently most people are paying the ransom with Green Dot MoneyPak, but it seems likely that future iterations will only accept Bitcoin.
Specifically, threads like this one concern me a lot. Summary: a little old lady was trying to buy bitcoins via the Canada ATM because she got a CryptoLocker infection. She has no clue what Bitcoin is beyond the fact that she needed some and didn't know what to do.
The risk/reward ratio for this kind of ransomware seems wildly out of proportion - Tor+Bitcoin together mean it takes huge effort to find the perpetrators and the difficulty of creating such a virus is very low. Also, the amount of money being made can be estimated from the block chain, and it's quite large. So it seems likely that even if law enforcement is able to take down the current CryptoLocker operation, more will appear in its place.
I don't have any particular opinion on what we should talk about. I'm aware of the arguments for and against such a scheme. I'm interested in new insights or thoughts. You can review the bitcointalk thread on decentralised crime fighting to get a feel for what has already been said.
I think this is a topic on which the Foundation should eventually arrive at a coherent policy for. Of course I know that won't be easy. -Mike Hearn
submitted by jdillonbtc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Attacking Bitcoin in the UK: Offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 in the United Kingdom makes it an offence to deliberately cause disruption to computer systems with intent http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/3
The recent and planned "stress test" attacks by Coinwallet.eu not only cause disruption, they cause nodes to crash and make services unavailable.
I would caution CoinWallet.EU against their "stress tests" are at risk of breaching UK law and probably cyber crime laws elsewhere. Any individual or business affected may contact the police and the evidence of the attacks is burned into the blockchain forever and various publications who have covered the story with direct contact from coinwallet.eu representatives.
EDIT:
It seems there is a bit of confusion, so I'll cover some of the concept here.
There is a concept in most legal jurisdictions that abuse or unauthorised use of computer systems/networks is an offence. In the case of abuse, if one intends to cause disruption and then attempts to do so, then an offence has been committed. Whether a computer system is vulnerable to attack is not the point and is not a defence.
Penetration testing is illegal without explicit permission from the owner of the computer system in question. Many people have conflated the Bitcoin network with nodes. If an attacker executes a denial of service it affects bitcoin nodes. There are two specific examples: DOS attacks against nodes, as it happening with XT, and the transaction attacks that have been executed by Coinwallet.eu.
In both examples the DOS attacks have a negative impact on the computer running the full node, as well as the functionality of the full node. The XT attacks consume bandwidth and the transaction attacks fill node mempools and cause nodes to crash.
This post is not about political values, it's about the law, as it stands. The attacks on XT nodes and the "stress tests" are illegal actions and those performing them should think twice. Of course getting caught is a different matter, certainly the XT attackers have not come out publicly, so hunting them down may pose a challenge. Coinwallet on the other hand has made no attempt to hide their intentions and I assume there is a trail leading right back to them. As a matter of law, I urge attackers to cease operations.
I'm quite shocked that some of the reddit community would condone these illegal actions or chose to politicise the matter.
I know I am not alone in my feelings and I would like to thank mike_hearn for actually bringing up the matter of the legality of attacks a few days ago on the XT mailing list. Unfortunately for him, the attackers of XT nodes are pretty well hidden. While I do not remotely support XT, or BIP101 (I'm quite vocal against them), I absolutely do not condone the illegal actions, however so motivated. I think there are better ways to let the Bitcoin ecosystem decide it's future. In any case, this post it not about XT or the blocksize debate, but about the illegality of the recent and planned attacks.
Further clarification of the law in the UK can be found here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/computer_misuse_act_1990/ under "Section 3 CMA - Unauthorised Acts with Intent to Impair"
submitted by btcdrak to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Read: An open letter to bitcoin miner

https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
Dear Bitcoin Miner,
My name is Jonald, and I am a Bitcoin investor.
I bought my first Bitcoins in 2013 and have been active on the Bitcointalk forum since March, 2014. I’m also a small business owner that actually uses Bitcoin for
Since Bitcoin investors and miners need each other to succeed, I wanted to take a minute to reach out to you, and send a sincere message from a “real Bitcoiner”. I’ll cut right to the chase:
I’m concerned. I believe we urgently need to find a scaling solution, and I believe the best solution is to increase the blocksize.
At least, hear me out.
Why Should You Listen to Me?
There’s a huge amount of misinformation, dishonesty, and political agendas attached to the Great Scaling Debate. The situation is serious and there’s a lot at stake here.
I am not beholden to any special interests. No one is paying me to write this. I am not a contributor to any Bitcoin projects, but I am quite familiar with the scaling topic because I’ve been following it for some time now, and I am knowledgeable enough to clearly understand the technical details.
I’ve heard all the arguments from every side of the debate, and I want to give you my honest, unbiased, unfiltered understanding of the situation.
Let’s Start At the Beginning
In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published a paper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Everybody knows this, but the exact title needs to be repeated because today, even the most basic facets of Bitcoin are being challenged. Should Bitcoin really be “cash” or instead “digital gold”? And if we follow Satoshi’s plan, is it really peer to peer?
These questions come not so much from open-minded inquiry, but rather from a biased agenda. This would have been inconceivable a few years ago, but now things have become so political, that certain people even want to re-write the Bitcoin whitepaper.
(Attempting to re-write history has always been a favorite tactic of tyrannical elites.)
Satoshi’s Vision to Scale Bitcoin
Regardless of “which side” of the scaling debate you are on, it should not be contested that Satoshi always planned for and advocated for simple, on-chain scaling.
When asked how Bitcoin would scale to Visa-like levels, he said:
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
Source
Disturbingly, this simple quote from Satoshi was moderated (deleted) from the bitcoin reddit page. I’ll revisit the censorship issue in a moment.
Another important fact is that the current blocksize limit of 1mb was intended to be a temporary measure. This was something ‘everyone’ knew before the debate became politicized.
One of the earliest code reviewers, Ray Dillinger, explained that he, Hal Finey, and Satoshi all agreed the limit was to be temporary.
Satoshi also provided the means to raise the limit with his famous quote:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
Here is one more explanation from Satoshi, in an email to Mike Hearn, about why Bitcoin never hits a scaling ceiling.
Sure, Satoshi isn’t God. The point isn’t to appeal to his authority, but simply to remember that Bitcoin always had a scaling plan in place from the beginning.
…But the “Core Devs” Had Other Ideas.
The history of the current crop of Bitcoin Core developers has been already summarized and described elsewhere.
Explanations have been given for the unproductive scaling conferences, the broken Hong Kong agreements, and so on, but it should be extremely clear to everyone, based on years of their behavior (and even their own words), that the Core group does not want to scale Bitcoin with a simple blocksize increase.
In fact, they (and their supporters) have done everything in their power to prevent this, including engaging in massive censorship.
Their primary arguments are as follows:
It is problematic to raise the limit because it requires a hard fork, which is difficult to coordinate.Bitcoin nodes should be as inexpensive to run as possible, otherwise the decentralization of Bitcoin will be threatened.Without a constraint on the blocksize, Bitcoin won’t be secure once subsidies (block rewards) decline.
None of These Arguments Have Sufficient Merit to Forestall a Blocksize Increase
I am not saying the arguments are entirely without merit. Few things in life are ever 100% black-and-white. But we have to weigh the merits of these positions against the alternatives, and against other factors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Let’s take one at a time:
The “Hard Forks Are Dangerous” Myth
This was a prominent talking point in 2014–2015. However, the truth is that hard forks (HF) are not necessarily dangerous, especially if they occur with a clear majority of hashing power supporting the upgraded consensus rules.
The previous group of developers, including Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, and Mike Hearn, all supported upgrading Bitcoin with hard forks.
Initially, the discussion was whether the new maximum blocksize would be 2MB, 4MB, or 8MB. What begin as a minor difference of opinions between the miners somehow snowballed into a potent meme that consensus over scaling was going to be difficult.
The developers starting adding their own opinions about hard forks, creating additional friction. Yes, it is easy to claim there is contention when you are among those being contentious!
Core has no official leadership positions or governance structure. Because of this, it has been easy to justify inaction by simply concluding that “there’s no consensus”. And since they control the reference code repository, their refusal to raise the limit effects everyone else.
In practice, Core does have leaders. How else can it be explained that segwit was merged into the code (even if not activated) with practically no public debate whatsoever?
On a side note, prominent Core developers have denied that Core decides what code is published, and have denied there is any leadership. This is an example of the kind of constant misinformation that is being generated on a daily basis.
Back to the HF issue:
Many altcoins like Monero have regular hard forks. Coordination between major players in an ecosystem is not a big challenge if everyone is on the same page.
So far, I have not heard of a single problem that an altcoin had in performing a network upgrade via hard fork. So, there is evidence that they can be done safely.
In addition, if Core admits in their roadmap that eventually the blocksize will need to be increased, then why not do it now when it is badly needed? There is no logical reason why it would be more risky now rather than later.
Decentralization Myths
There are actually several myths surrounding the issue of decentralization. Let’s address the obvious ones:
The most ludicrous is the “all users should be running full nodes” idea.
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’. Only mining nodes secure and extend Bitcon’s distributed ledger.
The white paper explains why most users do not need to run full nodes:
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he’s convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it’s timestamped in. He can’t check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it… …Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
The idea that a lot of non-mining full nodes will make the network more decentralized (because they can make sure the miners are behaving) is erroneous, because an SPV client can already query the network’s nodes. Generally, there would only be a problem if a majority mining of nodes were colluding dishonestly, in which case Bitcoin would be already broken.
A more valid concern is that as nodes become more expensive, eventually only large corporations will run nodes. It is true that node costs will increase over time as the network grows. However, storage, bandwidth, and processing capabilities are also constantly increasing.
Just as important: By the time that capacity increases — lets say from 3 TPS (transactions per second) to 30 TPS — the network will be so large that it likely won’t be any less decentralized, even if it costs more to run a node.
At 3000 TPS, Bitcoin would be highly dominant globally, and making use of the millions of datacenters and servers available worldwide. This was always the plan.
The Alternative Vision of Bitcoin Holds Decentralization Risks That Are Worse
Many users are not aware of the decentralization risks that come with the small-node/small-block vision of Bitcoin. Core’s vision for Bitcoin is to transform the peer-to-peer cash system into some kind of settlement network.
While this would be a way to keep node costs minimal, most users would be economically forced off the main chain because they cannot compete with institutions for fees. They would then need to get permission from trusted third parties to transact.
In my opinion, this represents a much more dangerous form of centralization than bigger blocks and expensive nodes.
The Fee-Market Failure Myth
The third primary argument of the small-block philosophy is that eventually, block rewards will run out, and mining fees will be the sole source of funding security. They then claim that without limiting the supply of transaction space, miners will be hopelessly caught in a tragedy-of-the-commons price war, with the users paying rock bottom fees, leading to a collapse of commercial mining.
There’s a few problems with this argument.
First of all, there is a natural market for every good and service in the world. There have been many price wars, but nothing with high demand ever stops being produced.
The concern that the network hashrate will become too low is based on several assumptions and variables, including the number of daily transactions, the willingness of the users to wait for confirmations, the willingness of the users to pay small amounts, the behavior of the miners, the fee policies set by various wallets, the emergent consensus on acceptable fees by the mining community, and other factors, including what actually is “too low” of a network hashrate in the first place.
The hypothetical failure of the natural fee market depends on all these assumptions combining into an unfavorable outcome, as well as the inability of the system to adjust itself favorably using any of these factors.
But, by far the biggest reason that this argument is bunk, is that it will be decades before the majority of the subsidies actually disappear.
Pure Foolishness: Overplanning the Future While Ignoring Urgent Issues Today
Why implement a plan that might help Bitcoin in 20–30 years, if it requires you to damage the user experience and erode the adoption and network effect of Bitcoin, today?
In the case of Bitcoin, it’s completely unnecessary to plan ahead that far, and the destructive consequences are already being seen.
This is the biggest reason why Core’s position should be considered indefensible. Even if their arguments have merit, it is more important to keep Bitcoin healthy right now, stay competitive, and keep the user base growing than to prevent the problems that may or may not happen later.
Even worse, those prevention plans work in direct opposition to the short term goals!
It is no less insane than demanding a bedridden hospital patient, badly in need of rest, to immediately go outside and start running laps because “exercise will help you live longer”.
What About Segwit?
It is my understanding that at “the Hong Kong meeting”, the miners agreed to Segwit PLUS a hardfork blocksize increase because they didn’t trust the Core team enough to offer satisfactory scaling in a timely manner.
I think their decision was smart. Core cannot be trusted. However, if Core changed their mind today, and agreed to the 2MB+Segwit, I would support that as a compromise to break the impasse.
They seem to be unwilling to do this.
Since miners are unwilling to accept segwit on its own, and since Core will not compromise, the only logical alternative is bigger blocks, which is the best option regardless.
What Core Wants
You may be wondering: How is it possible for people as intelligent as the Bitcoin Core developers to fail to see the obvious mistakes in their thinking?
American author Upton Sinclair’s famous quote comes to mind:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
The Core team and their supporters want to change Bitcoin into a settlement network. They will deny this, but in my opinion, all of their actions point to this logical conclusion.
This is why they are against on chain scaling, and why segwit offers as little of it as possible while supporting their “HF are bad” narrative.
Additionally, I believe they also want to control public opinion by employing key individuals, by their associates and moderation policies on various platforms, and with an army of trolls.
They also intimidate and punish businesses that don’t fall in line. For example, coinbase.com was delisted from bitcoin.org for supporting Bitcoin XT instead of the Core client.
Despite these shenanigans, companies do support bigger blocks and on-chain scaling.
Most importantly, they want to scare you, the miner, into believing that the community doesn’t really want big blocks and if that if you mine big blocks, you’ll be forked off to a worthless coin and left with worthless ASICs.
Do not let them intimidate you.
What the Users Want
Most users just want a Bitcoin that works. They do not want slow confirmation and high fees. Most Bitcoiners that use bitcoin frequently understand the issues and support bigger blocks.
Despite all the trolling and propaganda, users controlling actual coins vote overwhelmingly in favor of Satoshi’s scaling plan.
The “Healthy Fee Market” is Already Unhealthy
Even IF a centrally planned fee market was a good idea right now, it is being managed poorly. A “healthy” fee market should strive to provide adequate fee revenue while at the same time provide a good user experience and promote growth of the network and user base.
While miner revenue is certainly adequate, the user experience is severely degraded because of slow confirmations and high fees, and this is definitely not attractive or conducive to growing the user base.
If keeping the blocksize at 1mb was an experiment to see how the fee market would develop, it has already played out its usefulness. To keep fees at a level competitive with other coins, supply must catch up with demand (we must raise the blocksize) . But these developers seem to have no interest in doing so. They would rather carry on with their agenda than serve the users.
What About Bitcoin As a Store-of-Value or as “Digital Gold”?
The great thing about Bitcoin is that it can be both a cash-like payment system and a gold-like store of value. These two aspects enhance each other.
Exposed to the propaganda that Bitcoin can’t scale as electronic cash, some users have said “that’s ok. I’m fine with Bitcoin being digital gold only”. The problem with this thinking is that Bitcoin has competition.
If another coin is useful to store value AND to transact cheaply with, it severely undermines Bitcon’s appeal to investors. At the same time, it greatly dampens demand for actual usage.
Sure, its possible that Bitcoin could survive in some form as digital gold, but it would be at a huge disadvantage.
Small Blocks Destroy Miner Revenue
At first glance, the idea that smaller blocks are bad for mining revenue may appear incorrect, since fee rates have recently exploded based on the demand of Bitcoin transactions outpacing the supply of space in the blocks.
However, this trend cannot continue for long, since users will only pay so much. At the same time, new users and new demand are being shut out from the ecosystem.
To use an analogy: Who makes more money — the farmer in town “A” selling milk from one cow? Or the farmer in town “B” selling milk from 8 cows? Townspeople in “A” might pay more per bottle, but they’ll only pay so much for it. They will start drinking something else, drink milk less often, or import their milk from another town.
Bitcoin miners simply cannot meet the demands of users at fees they are willing to reasonably pay if blocks are restricted to 1mb… and users will find satisfactory alternatives which are quickly becoming abundant.
The situation will become even worse in the long run if Core is allowed to create “second layer solutions”, because those solutions will probably not be free, and they will further absorb the money that users are willing to spend in order to transact.
This will be bad for miners, and bad for network security. It will make bitcoin even less competitive, and money will leave the ecosystem.
Price Always Lags Behind Fundamentals
It is easy to look at a high Bitcoin price and think that everything is fine. If things were going so badly, why isn’t the price dropping?
But, price doesn’t always reflect the underlying fundamentals of a market in the short term.
In the long run, fundamentals always dictate the direction of the market. Daytraders are flat at the end of the day. Speculators come and go. In the end, it’s only the long term investors and the non-speculative demand that determines the price.
The fundamental value of Bitcoin primarily comes from its usefulness as a payment system. If that system ceases to be useful, Bitcoin will cease to be valuable.
Time To Act. Let’s Help Bitcoin Grow Again.
It’s always better to fix a problem BEFORE it gets too big. As they say, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.
If we wait until the Bitcoin price crashes because Bitcoin is unusable as a currency, it will be too late. We would have already lost serious momentum, marketshare, users, reputation, and merchants.
This is already happening, but there is still time to act.
I urge you: don’t be complacent.
You are the miner. You have the power. Start signaling for bigger blocks today, and let’s make sure Bitcoin stays #1.
Help Spread the Word
If you’re not a miner, but a concerned investor like myself, then please spread this message far and wide, and ask the miners and pools that you know for bigger blocks.
Addendum
This article is available in several foreign language formats:
Chinese Spanish Japanese German Russian
https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
submitted by german_bitcoiner to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks

TL;DR:
The market will inevitably prefer:
This means that the market of Bitcoin users and miners will reject Core/Blockstream's SegWit (with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics) - and the market will prefer Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based (user-configurable) blocksize based on a much simpler & safer hard fork - allowing essentially "unlimited" growth in Bitcoin adoption and price.
Details
Seriously folks, think about it:
How many successful broad-based socio-economic disruptive technologies allow their "community debate" about the high-level system specification to be centrally controlled and censored by a bunch of low-level (C++) implementation providers (and a bunch of central bankers funding them with fiat)?
The Bitcoin community never really asked for SegWit-as-a-soft-fork. It's being forced on us.
SegWit has been the horrendous misbegotten result of years of trolling from three stubborn out-of-touch devs who happened to get millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers: u/nullc and u/adam3us and the odd u/luke-jr who they carefully keep at arm's length - and a tiny army of lesser trolls, trotting out the same-old tired totally debunked, massively downvoted arguments - all supported by central banker trolls who provided $76 million in fiat to fund this misguided mess.
Many people in the Bitcoin community have never really participated in or even seen a serious, open, and honest debate about SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited - because there are basically only two kinds of people in the Bitcoin community now:
Bitcoin development used to be dominated by forward-thinking, community-responsive, devs supporting simple and safe on-chain scaling like Satoshi Nakamoto (whose quotes are banned on r\bitcoin), Gavin Andresen (ceaselessly hounded and attacked by an army of trolls) and Mike Hearn (whose greatest invention may have been the forgotten Lighthouse project - which could have given us bitcoin-funded ie non-fiat-funded development).
Now Bitcoin development is dominated by Debbie Downers and Dead Enders like u/nullc and u/adam3us and u/luke-jr who have never really believed that Bitcoin can scale on-chain and succeed the way that Satoshi said it could.
They've been doing everything they can to destroy Satoshi's successful experiment - refusing to remove Bitcoin's temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge for purely political and not technical reasons, and now trying to force everyone to adopt SegWit - the final, fatal kludge.
If it wasn't for the massive censoring on r\bitcoin, then a tsunami of true cypherpunk freedom and real community consensus would wash that cesspool clean, and the fiat-funded voices of u/nullc and u/adam3us and u/luke-jr (and the tiny minority of their vocal but misguided supporters) would sink the the bottom of every thread, a forgotten footnote of history with their shitty soft kludgy centrally-planned anyone-can-spend 1.7MB 1-to-4-discount SegWit soft-fork poison pill.
If Bitcoin gets upgraded the way Satoshi said it would (via flag days and/or hard forks - also known as a simple protocol upgrade or a full node referendum), then the community would reject Core/Blockstream's shitty centralized SegWit spaghetti-code soft fork, and Core/Blockstream would be forgotten - and their investors would be furious.
The Bitcoin community isn't stupid.
Economically intelligent Bitcoin users and miners will not vote against our own economic interests.
We will not "upgrade" to dangerous, messy, dead-end technology (SegWit) which needlessly overcomplicates our codebase and needlessly suppresses Bitcoin's userbase and price - when we can just as easily updrade to something clean and simple and growth-oriented like Bitcoin Unlimited, which keeps our codebase clean and simple and safe, while providing an open-ended, market-based, long-term solution for blocksize, supporting long-term (essentially "unlimited") growth in Bitcoin's userbase and price.
Everyone (ie, everyone who gets their information on uncensored forums like btc and who isn't getting millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers) knows by now that:
It is the very softness (ie: kludginess) of SegWit which would make future upgrades to Bitcoin so much more difficult and complicated (aka "technical debt").
Worst of all: SegWit would introduce a radical, unknown, untested exotic new threat vector: a totally new type of "51% attack" where old coins would now also be at risk (due to SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" semantics - which would be totally unnecessary to use if SegWit had been done as a clean and safe hard fork, instead of a messy and dangerous soft fork).
The stubbornness (and recklessness) of insisting on doing SegWit as this kind of dangerous and messy soft fork is 100% because Blockstream is afraid to do a clean and safe "hard" fork - because a hard fork lets Bitcoin users and miners actually have an explicit "vote" - or a "full node referendum" - and Core/Blockstream knows that the result would most likely be that Bitcoin users and miners would "dump" Core/Blockstream's shitty code with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and its dangerous anyone-can-spend soft-fork hack.
So Core/Blockstream are trying to force more dangerous, less useful code on the network, using the toxic tools of fiat and censorship, purely for their own selfish "political" and "economic" reasons.
Core/Blockstream has millions of dollars in fiat now so they don't care if they continue to suppress the Bitcoin price like they have since they came on the scene in late 2014.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
Also see a similar graph in u/Peter__R's recent article on Medium - where the graph clearly shows the same Bitcoin price suppression - ie price uncoupling from adoption and dipping below the previous tightly correlated trend - starting right at that fateful moment when Blockstream came on the scene and told Bitcoiners that we can't have nice things anymore like on-chain scaling and increasing adoption and price: late 2014.
So, Core/Blockstream offers inferior, centrally planned, dangerous messy code - and they are responsible for not only splitting the community but also even arguably suppressing Bitcoin adoption and price - and now they're such bold arrogant fuckheads that they want to make their hegemony permanent by monopolizing Bitcoin governance forever in the future by sneaking in their shittier and shittier code starting with the Trojan Horse of SegWit-as-a-soft-fork with its centrally-planned hard-coded parameters and radical dangerous new anti-security model making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" - recklessly and needlessly exposing Bitcoin to exotic, unknown attack vectors which have never existed before in its 8 years of safe and successful growth.
Core/Blockstream don't give a fuck if they hurt us Bitcoin users and miners in the process - because they don't care about you - they only care about themselves - and the central bankers who are paying them.
Bitcoin Unlimited isn't influenced by censorship or fiat.
The bottom line is:
Evaluating our "upgrade options" in those (technological and economic and "governance") terms is the right way to evaluate these things - indeed it is the only way to evaluate these things - and everybody (except a bunch of unpopular out-of-touch devs and shills sucking the dicks of central bankers) knows that SegWit's messy technology, economic and scaling dead-end, and centralized governance is totally inferior to Bitcoin Unlimited, on all three counts.
Everyone knows that:
With Bitcoin Unlimited, the community continues to be in control - of our code, our governance, and our blocksize - not a tiny handful of fiat-funded devs and miners like Core/Blockstream and BitFury and a tiny minority of their outspoken supporters (who are well-known on this forum - just look at the bottom of every thread, where they are massively downvoted - but never censored! - after spouting their tired, tedious, repeatedly debunked astroturf arguments).
The next time those people try to attack the idea of market-based blocksize, we know how to make their heads explode, just by asking them:
If the users the miners shouldn't decide the blocksize - then who the fuck should??
And if that kind of conversation were to continue, it might go like:
Who should decide the blocksize - you or me?
_"Small-blockers" Blocksize central planners are satisfied with a centrally planned one-time hard-coded bump to 1.7MB blocks via a dangerous messy convoluted "soft" fork called SegWit which actually centralizes and suppresses Bitcoin by pricing most people off of the blockchain. Fine, that's your opinion and you're free to say it and we're free to downvote it and to reject your poorly written code with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and its anyone-can-spend hack.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Bitcoin users and miners want to be free - and we want our code to be simple and safe. We support market-based blocksize so our code and our markets can be free of some ridiculous arbitrary centrally planned hard-coded 1MB 1.7MB blocksize - and we want our code to be fred of messy, dangerous hacks and kludges lke SegWit. Instead, we support decentralized governance and market-based, non-centrally-planned, open-ended Bitcoin debate and open-ended Bitcoin economic and social growth and adoption.
The Bitcoin community can and should and therefore eventually (inevitably) will adapt the software solution which explicitly supports users and miners deciding the blocksize in a clean, safe, future-proof "hard" fork called Bitcoin Unlimited.
In the end, the market will choose the approach (SegWit or Bitcoin Unlimited) which provides the most economic incentives, using the simplest and safest technology.
Economic incentives, based on using the simplest and safest technology, are what drives Bitcoin and makes it succeed.
  • Blockstream/Core and BitFury can "afford" to ignore the will of the Bitcoin community, and can "afford" to ignore their own economic incentives - because they have millions of dollars in fiat, and they communicate on censored forums. They're fiat-funded, centralized, censored, and fragile. They're fine with making their codebase even more centralized and fragile - by adopting SegWit.
  • The rest of the Bitcoin community communicates on non-censored forums, and we want to maximize the value of our investments in Bitcoin. We're community-oriented and our code supports market-based blocksize using simple and safe and flexible and upgradeable code - so we're adopting Bitcoin Unlimited.
You are free to choose between these two options - based on your own economic incentives, and based on your understanding of the best technology roadmap:
How rich are you gonna get with SegWit, now and in the long term?
  • SegWit is dangerous and messy, fiat-funded, censorship-supported centrally-planned soft-fork spaghetti code - creating zombie nodes and requiring millions of lines of risky code changes in all wallets, exchanges and business software - and in the end only offering an arbitrary pathetic 1.7MB blocksize - and recklessly making all transactions anyone-can-spend - while increasing "dev team lock-in" and continuing to centrally suppress Bitcoin's adoption and price. ... versus:
How rich are you gonna get with Bitcoin Unlimited, now and in the long term?
  • Bitcoin Unlimited is clean & safe community-supported non-fiat-funded, non-censorship-based code, providing a long-term scaling and governance solution offering market-based blocksize, where users and miners will continue to determine the size of blocks (as they actually quite successfully and profitably have for the past 8 years), based on our understanding of current financial and technological conditions, while continuing to support unlimited growth in Bitcoin's adoption and price (as we've also seen for the past 8 years).
The market of Bitcoin users and miners (ie, you) can and should (and therefore will) decide!
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Subspace: A new messaging protocol for bitcoin

A few weeks ago we saw a proposal from Thomas V at Electrum to use email for sending BIP70 payment requests.
I'd like to introduce you to a joint project between myself (bitcoinauthenticator.org) and the Open Bazaar dev team to develop a messaging protocol that is better suited for this purpose ― Subspace.
What is it?
A preliminary design for a lightweight asynchronous private messaging protocol.
You can read more about it on github.
And download a proof-of-concept anonymous messaging client built on the protocol from here.
What can we use it for?
Direct payments
Currently when we send bitcoin payments, the sender broadcasts the transaction to the bitcoin network with the recipient downloading it from the network.
One of the problems here is that while it's easy for lite clients upload a transaction to the network privately (using Tor), it's very difficult (if not impossible) for them to download their messages privately. A minority if wallets use either bloom or prefix filtering to obfuscate their downloads, but implementing it properly is very difficult and at present none do. Even then it's impossible to avoid privacy leaks in all situations.
By sending the payment directly to the recipient over another communication channel, the sender can upload it without blowing his privacy. (We still need to query for block inclusion, but this can be done as a one off).
Some of you may know that this was Satoshi's original vision. Version 0.1 had a pay-to-IP address protocol that sent transactions directly to the recipient with the recipeint's client uploading it. The goal is to do that here, but using a fully encrypted, private, communication channel. Because it's using ECDH, you could easily use the same (stealth) address that you use to receive bitcoins to receive payment messages (or any kind of message for that matter).
BIP70 Payment Requests
The payment protocol is currently only used for merchant-consumer transactions, but we should be able to send payment requests from person to person.
Furthermore, BIP70 is currently a "pull" model, where your wallet downloads the payment request only after clicking a link or scanning a QR. Using this protocol, we could "push" payment requests to users and enable monthly billing and various other services.
Attaching private messages to transactions
There isn't any way to do this with person to person transactions at present. You could stick a message for the recipient in OP_RETURN (not recommended) but it would be publicly visible for everyone to see. With subspace we can do this easily.
Coinjoin
There are only two coinjoin implementations at present and both are running on independent servers. Ideally we shouldn't be segregating coinjoin participants by server. It makes the pool of participants smaller, leading to less robust mixing and longer mix times. Since subspace allows for real time communication, we could run protocol like coinjoin over it. (On a related note I've had a number of conversations with Tim Ruffing, author of the coinshuffle paper, and the one thing it's been missing is an appropriate communication channel).
And finally Open Bazaar has quite a few use cases ― Ricardian contract hosting, multiparty communication (buyer, merchant, notary), market channels, haggling, etc.
Why not use bitmessage for all this?
This question is inevitable. That would be ideal, unfortunately bitmessage has some design properties that make it ill-suited for most of these use cases.
The biggest issue is the proof-of-work. Currently bitcoin transactions go through in less than a second. With bitmessage it would take 2-3 minutes and you would kill your battery on mobile. The UX would be so poor no one would use it.
Coinjoin is another one. You need real time communication to make it work or else transactions would take an hour and likely never complete as parties would just drop out.
Also, bitmessage has scalability issues. It requires all clients to store all messages despite there being no consensus requirement (like in bitcoin) that would necessitate it. And since it's basically a network of volunteers, it has to use POW as a somewhat awkward hack to ration disk space.
In subspace, messages are only required to be stored by the node to which they were uploaded (others can voluntarily download and store for redundancy, but it isn't a requirement). This allows us to ration disk space without proof-of-work by using quota or charging (in bitcoin) for storage.
And finally bitmessage is heavyweight protocol, unsuitable for lite clients. Subspace is designed exclusively for lite clients (with prefix filtering for user defined anonymity sets) and is easy to implement.
So to answer the question... it offers the same amount of privacy, but it's lighter, faster, more scalable, and easier to implement. All around better suited for the use cases outlined above.
Where we go from here?
Everything above is very preliminary. Nothing is set in stone and we would certainly appreciate feedback. I've already received some good technical feedback from Mike Hearn, and we would welcome more.
On the client... keep in mind I wrote that in about a week's worth of work. Hence, you probably shouldn't use it for anything that definitely needs to be kept secret as there is likely to be bugs.
But it seems to be working well otherwise. It connects over Tor automatically and every message is routed through a different exit node. If it's something this community values, more time could be invested in it. It also would be pretty easy to throw on Android if someone wanted to do that.
If you would like to help out, check it out on github. There is more work to do on the network side before it's fully functional.
Cheers
submitted by Chris_Pacia to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An email from a concerned friend who got into Bitcoin in 2010 and successfully mined blocks using their CPUs. I have similar concerns, hence the repost here (with permission).

Hey X and Y
Are you two aware that the Bitcoin Core devs are making big changes to the bitcoin network which fundamentally change the economics of bitcoin and what you can and can't do with bitcoin?
If people continue to use the Bitcoin Core software many of the things that we know work well in the bitcoin network, are going to be discarded and replaced with other things which may or may not work.
It's quite upsetting for me. I've watched Bitcoin make it this far and now it's like it's being torn apart in front of my eyes, largely by Blockstream and Viacoin employees/founders who develop Bitcoin Core. These people have a serious conflict of interest and they are clearly acting on that conflict.
At this point the only core devs I trust are: Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn. Of those 3, both Gavin and Hearn have been ostracized out of Bitcoin Core development and I think Jeff will be soon too as he clearly is pushing back against the agenda of the problematic Bitcoin Core devs (eg Peter Todd, Luke JR and G Maxwell).
One example of the destructive things the Core devs are doing is this:
Peter Todd is pushing for something called Full-RBF. 0-conf transactions are an essential part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. They are used widely by many businesses (eg ShapeShift.io). There are risks associated with accepting 0-conf transactions, but those risks can be mitigated and managed. Full-RBF will vastly decrease the usefulness of 0-conf transactions. Peter Todd is literally adding code to Bitcoin Core that damages Bitcoin. If they achieve their goal of getting a significant number of miners using Bitcoin Core with Full-RBF mode enabled, it will no longer be practical to use Bitcoin in stores to pay for goods as you will be forced to wait for 1 confirmation. People will be forced into off-chain solutions (eg Coinbase.com offchain transactions). It will no longer be safe for the shop keeper to accept bitcoin transactions from SPV wallets (eg Breadwallet).
With Full RBF, 0-conf transactions will become something you can only rely on for: * trading with trustworthy people (eg friends, family and businesses you have an established relationship with) * signalling that your transaction has entered the network (not that it will likely confirm).
Todd has already successfully committed code to Bitcoin Core's master branch that performs something called Opt-in Full-RBF. This Opt-in Full-RBF isn't as bad as Full RBF, but it has a whole bunch of really negative repercussions. The main ones being: * it makes Bitcoin more complicated for novice users to understand * it increases the complexity of wallets * it makes it more likely that novice users will be scammed
Also: the term "opt-in" is very (and probably deliberately) misleading. The sender of the transaction opts-in to creating a transaction, but the receiver does not opt-in. Wallet devs will also be forced to make changes to deal with this new transaction type if Bitcoin Core continues to be used. They will be forced to add weird messages to their wallet software which say something like: "You have received an RBF transaction. Unlike normal transactions, RBF transactions can be more easily double spent. If you are unsure what this means, you should wait for at least 1 confirmation."
In-fact. That lengthy message doesn't even give the user all the info they need to know. It doesn't explain why they might have received the RBF transaction: * are they under attack? * is the sender trying to bump their transaction fee? * is the senders wallet software misconfigured?
It adds a layer of complexity which is completely unnecessary.
Another thing they are doing is unnecessarily keeping the maximum block size capped at 1MiB. 1MiB was always widely understood to be a temporary limit to stop the blockchain getting too bloated in the early days of the currency. It kept the network cheap to run and easy to join. Keeping it stuck this low now that we are hitting that limit regularly is going to cause what Jeff Garzik refers to as an "Economic Change Event" (ECE). You can read about it here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011973.html
This ECE is going to materialize as absolute havoc on the network; probably within the next 6 months. There will be many frustrated users on account of stuck/delayed transactions. It will become far more expensive to send transactions. Many people will sell their Bitcoin holdings causing the price to drop. Many people will simply not understand what is happening and out of fear and uncertainty they will sell off their holdings. Businesses that relied on cheap transactions will close up shop. Mainstream media will [correctly] portray Bitcoin as a failed attempt at creating a global currency. The growth of Bitcoin will be stumped.
I've heard probably every single reasoned argument related to the blocksize debate and it is abundantly obvious to me that it's perfectly safe to increase the maximum blocksize.
Anyway. I wanted to let you guys know what I think about what's going on. I'd be interested to know if you share any of my concerns or if this is the first you're hearing about these issues.
If you agree with me I strongly urge you to avoid using the Bitcoin Core software and advise others not to use it either. There are 3 decent full-node alternatives to choose from and soon there will soon be a forth: btcd: https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/btcd Bitcoin Unlimited: http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/ Bitcoin XT: https://bitcoinxt.software/ Toshi: https://toshi.io/ [Warning: BETA software]
Also, you should avoid the following heavily censored websites: bitcoin.org reddit.com/bitcoin bitcointalk.org
There are decent replacements for those sites/pages where you can freely discuss these issues without being banned/muted: https://www.bitcoin.com https://forum.bitcoin.com/ https://reddit.com/btc https://bitco.in/forum/ https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/
Hope you are both well, Z
submitted by itsgremlin to btc [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc posts from 2018-05-14 to 2018-05-19 12:59 PDT

Period: 5.31 days
Submissions Comments
Total 783 12622
Rate (per day) 147.47 2006.25
Unique Redditors 432 1955
Combined Score 23860 47871

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 1470 points, 7 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Purse.io is paying its employees in Bitcoin Cash. (441 points, 63 comments)
    2. Forbes Author Frances Coppola takes blockstream to task. (359 points, 35 comments)
    3. Purse CEO Andrew Lee confirms they are paying employees in BCH and native BCH integration update will be coming soon! (334 points, 43 comments)
    4. After today's BCH Upgrade, longer posts are now enabled on memo.cash! (245 points, 31 comments)
    5. Bitcoin cash fund is providing cashback and prizes for using Bitcoin (BCH) on purse.io next month. (76 points, 4 comments)
    6. As an existential threat to his criminal enterprise Wells Fargo, Bitcoin is rat poison for Warren Buffet. (15 points, 1 comment)
    7. Craig Wright in Rwanda- "I've got more money than your country". With advocates like these, no wonder BCH has a PR problem. (0 points, 6 comments)
  2. 1419 points, 6 submissions: tralxz
    1. Breaking News: Winklevoss Brothers Bitcoin Exchange Adds Bitcoin Cash support! (510 points, 115 comments)
    2. Jihan Wu was asked "Why are the miners still supporting Bitcoin Core? Is it just a short term profitability play?", he answered: "Yes, exactly." (273 points, 214 comments)
    3. Cobra:"That feeling when Blockstream, [...] release Liquid, a completely centralized sidechain run only by trusted nodes and designed for banks, financial institutions and exchanges." (240 points, 145 comments)
    4. Jihan Wu on Bloomberg predicting Bitcoin Cash at $100,000 USD in 5 years. (169 points, 65 comments)
    5. CNBC's Fast Money: Ran NeuNer says he would HODL Bitcoin Cash and sell Bitcoin Core. (168 points, 58 comments)
    6. Coindesk: "Florida Tax Collector to Accept Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash Payments" (59 points, 8 comments)
  3. 1221 points, 14 submissions: Kain_niaK
    1. I am getting flashbacks from when I tried to close my Bank of America account ... (348 points, 155 comments)
    2. moneybutton.com is a configurable client-side Bitcoin Cash (BCH) wallet in an iframe. When the user makes a payment, a webhook URL is called allowing your app to respond to the payment, such as displaying content behind a pay wall. (189 points, 37 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash can turn in to the biggest non violent protest against the establishment ever : "We simply stop using their money." Which is a great way of getting edgy teenagers to join us. There is an almost infinite supply of edgy teenagers in the world. (153 points, 42 comments)
    4. Purse.io at the Coingeek conference in HK just announced native BCH support!!! They are also launching a new software implementation called "bcash" (111 points, 6 comments)
    5. Who is all doing stuff like this on Reddit? Do we realize that we can make the Bitcoin Cash economy easily 10 times as big just by getting Reddit users on board? All they need is a good first user experience. Bitcoin needs to be experienced above everything else before you even talk about it. (109 points, 53 comments)
    6. /cryptocurrency in meltdown (88 points, 16 comments)
    7. Ryan X Charles from Yours.org had an amazing to the point presentation about the future of content creation on the internet. (85 points, 12 comments)
    8. So now that we have had tippr and chaintip for a while, what are you guys favourite and why? Or do you use both? (43 points, 25 comments)
    9. John Moriarty about why you can't separate Bitcoin from Blockchain. (37 points, 12 comments)
    10. The next wave of attack will be all the big internet giants supporting Bitcoin Core and LN. Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, I bet you that the more successful Bitcoin Cash becomes the more you will see big cooperation’s be forced to go with compromised Bitcoin. (25 points, 28 comments)
  4. 623 points, 5 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Frances Coppola on Twitter: “Congratulations, Blockstream, you have just reinvented the interbank lending market.” (414 points, 139 comments)
    2. We have a new alternative public mod logs (101 points, 35 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) sponsored Mei Yamaguchi's championship fight will be live on YouTube in an hour or so (2 fights left before hers - Livestream) (53 points, 22 comments)
    4. Uncensored: /t/Bitcoin (reddit without the censorship) (49 points, 43 comments)
    5. Information post about the recent suspension and re-activation of publicmodlogs (Update) (6 points, 0 comments)
  5. 582 points, 1 submission: VanquishAudio
    1. Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate.. (582 points, 113 comments)
  6. 493 points, 8 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Bitcoin Cash supporting Bitmain is leading a $110M investment in Circle. This is super bullish for BCH on Circle! (122 points, 24 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Core supporter who scammed his way into consensus without a ticket is busy calling Bitcoin.com and others scammers at the event. (98 points, 140 comments)
    3. I see lots of people coming here every day asking why we think Bitcoin is BCH. Here is why I think so: (79 points, 73 comments)
    4. The Bitcoin.com CTO made a fun little transaction puzzle with one of the new op-codes: (79 points, 11 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Cash is the fighter that everyone loves. (42 points, 86 comments)
    6. This graphic aged well over the last 3 months. (34 points, 64 comments)
    7. An example of the sophisticated arguments BTC supporters use against BCH supporters. (20 points, 12 comments)
    8. Tired of staying up all night looking at CoinMarket Cap? Give Bitcoin.com's Satoshi Pulse a try in night mode! (19 points, 11 comments)
  7. 475 points, 4 submissions: rdar1999
    1. Consensus 2018 sucked hard. Superficial talks, ridiculous ticket price, overcrowded venue. (235 points, 78 comments)
    2. See in this twitter thread Luke Jr actually arguing that PayPal is cheaper than BCH!! Is this guy in full delirium? Or just spouts misinformation on purpose? (173 points, 227 comments)
    3. Upgrade completed at height 530356! (59 points, 2 comments)
    4. On decentralization and archival nodes. (8 points, 5 comments)
  8. 465 points, 17 submissions: Windowly
    1. Yeah!! "We are pleased to announce that the new Bitcoin Cash address format has been implemented on QuadrigaCX. This will help our users to easily distinguish Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash addresses when funding/withdrawing their account. The BCH legacy addresses will still be supported." (164 points, 8 comments)
    2. "Friendly reminder: If you pay more than the bare minimum (1/sat per byte) to send a #BitcoinCash BCH transaction - you paid too much. 👍🏻"~James Howells (99 points, 12 comments)
    3. Bitpay Enables Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) for Tax Payments - Bitcoin News (59 points, 31 comments)
    4. "I like the symbology of 1,000,000 ␢ = 1 ₿ for #BitcoinCash What the 'little b' units are called I don't care that much, it will settle in whether it remains 'bits', or 'cash', or 'credits' ... " (55 points, 54 comments)
    5. ~Public Service Announcement~ Please be extra careful using Bitcoin Cash on the Trezor! They have not yet implemented CashAddr Security. Make sure to covert your address with cashaddr.bitcoincash.org and double check with a block explorer to make sure the address is the same. (39 points, 12 comments)
    6. "WRT telling others what to do or not to do (as opposed to asking them) on the point of making proposals or petitioning others - I hope we can take the time to re-read and take to heart @Falkvinge 's excellent dispute resolution advice in . ." [email protected] (33 points, 0 comments)
    7. Why I support Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And why I support cash-denominated wallets. 1$ is inconsequential pocket change to some. To others it is their livelihood. Thank you @BitcoinUnlimit & @Bitcoin_ABC for your work in this regard. (7 points, 16 comments)
    8. If anyone feels that they are forced or imposed to do anything, or threatened by any other person or group’s initiative, he doesn’t understand Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The beauty of Bitcoin Cash is that innovation & creativity is permissionless. Let’s celebrate new ideas together! (5 points, 1 comment)
    9. "Bits as a unit right now (100sat), no matter named bits or cash or whatever, is extremely useless at this time and in the near future : Its worth 1/11 of a CENT right now. Even it suddenly 10x, its still only 1 single cent."~Reina Nakamoto (2 points, 7 comments)
    10. Love this converter! Thank you @rogerkver ! At present 778.17 ␢ = 1 USD (1,000,000 ␢ = 1 ₿) Tools.bitcoin.com (2 points, 0 comments)
  9. 443 points, 33 submissions: kairostech99
    1. Purse.io Adds Native BCH Support and Launches 'Bcash' (116 points, 40 comments)
    2. Openbazaar Enables Decentralized Peer-To-Peer Trading of 44 Cryptocurrencies (93 points, 21 comments)
    3. Thailand Waives 7% VAT for Individual Cryptocurrency Investors (84 points, 1 comment)
    4. Switzerland Formally Considers State Backed Cryptocurrency (26 points, 8 comments)
    5. Research Paper Finds Transaction Patterns Can Degrade Zcash Privacy (24 points, 2 comments)
    6. Japan's GMO Gets Ready to Start Selling 7nm Bitcoin Mining Chips (21 points, 0 comments)
    7. MMA Fighter Mei Yamaguchi Comes Out Swinging for Bitcoin.com (18 points, 5 comments)
    8. Bitmain Hits Back at “Dirty Tricks” Accusations (15 points, 4 comments)
    9. Circle Raises $110Mn With Plans to Launch USD-Backed Coin (6 points, 2 comments)
    10. Coinbase Remains the Most Successful and Important Company in the Crypto Industry (5 points, 7 comments)
  10. 420 points, 4 submissions: crypto_advocate
    1. Jihan on Roger: "I learnt a lot about being open and passionate about what you believe in from him[Roger]" (161 points, 45 comments)
    2. Bitcoin.com's first officially sponsored MMA fighter head to toe in Bitcoin Cash gear on her walkout - "She didn't win but won the hearts of a lot of new fans" (150 points, 14 comments)
    3. "Bitcoin Community is thriving again" Roger Ver at CoinGeek (98 points, 8 comments)
    4. Today is a historic day. [Twitter] (11 points, 1 comment)
  11. 376 points, 2 submissions: singularity87
    1. Bitcoin Cash Fund has partnered with Purse.io to launch their suite of BCH services and tools. (212 points, 15 comments)
    2. Proposal - Makes 'bits' (1 millionth BCH) the standard denomination and 'BIT' the ticker. (164 points, 328 comments)
  12. 349 points, 1 submission: bearjewpacabra
    1. UPGRADE COMPLETE (349 points, 378 comments)
  13. 342 points, 1 submission: Devar0
    1. Congrats! Bitcoin Cash is now capable of a 32MB block size, and new OP_CODES are reactivated! (342 points, 113 comments)
  14. 330 points, 3 submissions: btcnewsupdates
    1. Amaury Sechet in HK: "We want to be as boring as possible... If we do our job well, you won't even notice us." (173 points, 29 comments)
    2. This is the way forward: Miners Consider Using Bitcoin Cash Block Reward to Fund Development (136 points, 86 comments)
    3. Merchant adoption: unexpected success. Perhaps the community should now put more of its focus on canvassing end users. (21 points, 7 comments)
  15. 318 points, 3 submissions: HostFat
    1. From One to Two: Bitcoin Cash – Purse: Save 20%+ on Amazon [2018] (173 points, 25 comments)
    2. Open Bazzar v2.2.0 - P2P market and P2P exchange now! (92 points, 15 comments)
    3. Tree Signature Variations using Commutative Hash Trees - Andrew Stone (53 points, 5 comments)
  16. 287 points, 1 submission: Libertymark
    1. Congrats BCH developers, we appreciate your work here and continued innovation (287 points, 79 comments)
  17. 260 points, 9 submissions: unitedstatian
    1. The guy had 350 bucks received via Lightning Network but he can't even close the channels to actually withdraw the bitcoins. (135 points, 188 comments)
    2. The first megabytes are far more crucial than the 100th. Not every MB was born equal and by giving up on adoption for years Core may have given up on adoption forever. (69 points, 20 comments)
    3. Looks like fork.lol is misleading users on purpose into thinking the fees on BTC and BCH are the same (28 points, 32 comments)
    4. Just because the nChain patents aren't on the base protocol level doesn't mean it's a good idea, BCH could end up with patents which are so part of its normal use it will effectively be part of it. (13 points, 33 comments)
    5. [Not a meme] This is what the TxHighway BTC road should look like when the memepool is large. The unconfirmed tx's should be represented with cars waiting in the toll lines. (9 points, 2 comments)
    6. Lighthouse should have a small button to easily integrate it with any web page where a task is required (4 points, 1 comment)
    7. Poland Becomes World's First to put Banking Records on the Blockchain (2 points, 3 comments)
    8. If I were Core and wanted to spam BCH, and since spamming with multiple tx's will be counterproductive, I'd pay unnecessarily high fees instead (0 points, 32 comments)
    9. What happens when "the man" starts blocking nodes in China now that they function as mass media? (0 points, 1 comment)
  18. 259 points, 2 submissions: outofsync42
    1. Sportsbook.com now accepting BCH!! (215 points, 42 comments)
    2. BITCOIN CASH VS BITCOIN 2018 | Roger Ver on CNBC Fast Money (44 points, 15 comments)
  19. 255 points, 2 submissions: Bitcoinmathers
    1. Bitcoin Cash Upgrade Milestone Complete: 32MB and New Features (255 points, 90 comments)
    2. Bitgo Launches Institutional Grade Custodial Services Suite (0 points, 0 comments)
  20. 223 points, 2 submissions: ForkiusMaximus
    1. Japanese tweeter makes a good point about BTC: "You don't call it an asset if it crumbles away every time you go to use it. You call it a consumable." (141 points, 21 comments)
    2. Jimmy Nguyen: Bitcoin Cash can function for higher level technical programming (82 points, 3 comments)
  21. 218 points, 3 submissions: mccormack555
    1. Trying to see both sides of the scaling debate (193 points, 438 comments)
    2. Has Craig Wright Committed Perjury? New Information in the Kleiman Case (25 points, 56 comments)
    3. Thoughts on this person as a representative of Bitcoin Cash? (0 points, 21 comments)
  22. 216 points, 4 submissions: jimbtc
    1. $50K worth of crypto to anyone who leaks the inner communications of the #CultOfCore (183 points, 29 comments)
    2. Liquidity Propaganda: "The formation of payment hubs happens naturally even in two-party payment channels like the Lightning Network.". LOL. Fuel the LN vs Liquidity fire :D (31 points, 7 comments)
    3. WBD 017 - Interview with Samson Mow (2 points, 19 comments)
    4. If you wanted further proof that Andreas Antonopolous is a BCore Coreonic Cuck then here's a new speech from May 6th (0 points, 8 comments)
  23. 212 points, 1 submission: porlybe
    1. 32 Lanes on TXHighway (212 points, 96 comments)
  24. 211 points, 3 submissions: Akari_bit
    1. "AKARI-PAY Advanced" Released, for Bitcoin Cash! (73 points, 6 comments)
    2. 129% funded! We flew by our first BCH fundraising goal, demonstrating AKARI-PAY! HUGE SUCCESS! (70 points, 7 comments)
    3. Devs.Cash updated with new Dev projects, tools, and bounties for Bitcoin Cash! (68 points, 7 comments)
  25. 210 points, 1 submission: CollinEnstad
    1. Purse.io Introduces 'bcash', an Implementation of the BCH protocol, just like ABC, BU, or Classic (210 points, 125 comments)
  26. 206 points, 20 submissions: marcelchuo3
    1. Bitcoin Cash Community Sees OP_Code Innovation After Upgrade (70 points, 3 comments)
    2. Coingeek Conference 2018: Bitcoin Cash Innovation Shines in Hong Kong (65 points, 4 comments)
    3. Bitfinex Starts Sharing Customer Tax Data with Authorities (16 points, 3 comments)
    4. Colorado Proposal Aims to Allow Cryptocurrency Donations for Campaigns (12 points, 2 comments)
    5. Thailand Commences Cryptocurrency Regulations Today (8 points, 1 comment)
    6. Bitcoin Mining Manufacturer Canaan Files for Hong Kong Stock Exchange IPO (7 points, 0 comments)
    7. Bitcoin in Brief Thursday: OECD Explores Cryptocurrencies, Central Asian Powerhouse Calls for UN Crypto Rules (5 points, 0 comments)
    8. Moldova with New Crypto Exchange and a Token (5 points, 0 comments)
    9. Korean Regulators Widen Investigation of Cryptocurrency Exchanges (4 points, 0 comments)
    10. Arrest Warrants Issued to Employees of South Korean Crypto Exchange (3 points, 0 comments)
  27. 198 points, 1 submission: anberlinz
    1. I used to think BCH was the bad guy, now I'm beginning to change the way I see it... Convince me that BCH is the real Bitcoin (198 points, 294 comments)
  28. 196 points, 1 submission: Chris_Pacia
    1. First tree signature on Bitcoin Cash using new opcodes (196 points, 61 comments)
  29. 191 points, 3 submissions: cryptorebel
    1. Coinbase blog from 2015: "bits is the new default". The reason "bits" stopped being used was because of high fees on segwitcoin. Lets bring back "bits" on the real Bitcoin-BCH! (106 points, 66 comments)
    2. Here is the Bitcoin-BCH countdown clock to the hard fork upgrade with new 32MB block limit capacity, and re-enabled op-codes. Looks like its about 17 hours away. (78 points, 2 comments)
    3. This is Core's idea of open development, you are "super welcome" to work on anything that the gatekeepers say is ok. People tout Core as having so many devs but it doesn't matter much when you have to go through the gatekeepers. (7 points, 14 comments)
  30. 186 points, 2 submissions: coinfeller
    1. Bitcoin Cash France is offering 32 000 bits of BCH for Tipping Tuesday to celebrate the upgrade from 8MB to 32MB (178 points, 101 comments)
    2. How the Bitcoin Cash upgrade from 8MB to 32MB seems like :) (8 points, 10 comments)
  31. 185 points, 3 submissions: money78
    1. Congratulations Bitcoin Cash for the 32MB, WTG! (93 points, 5 comments)
    2. Roger Ver on CNBC's Fast Money again and he says bitcoin cash will double by the end of the year! (68 points, 30 comments)
    3. The Bitcoin Cash upgrade: over 8 million transactions per day, data monitoring, and other possibilities (24 points, 3 comments)
  32. 182 points, 26 submissions: haumeris28
    1. MMA Fighter Mei Yamaguchi Sponsored By Bitcoin Cash Proponent Roger Ver (32 points, 3 comments)
    2. Swiss Government is Studying the Risks and Benefits of State-Backed Cryptocurrency (30 points, 3 comments)
    3. Circle and Bitmain partner for US Dollar backed Token (25 points, 18 comments)
    4. Apple Co-Founder - Ethereum Has the Potential to be the Next Apple (16 points, 13 comments)
    5. Florida County To Begin Accepting Tax Payments in Crypto (14 points, 0 comments)
    6. ‘Blockchain Will Drive the Next Industrial Revolution’, According to a Major Wall Street Firm (11 points, 0 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash Undergoes a Hard Fork, Increases Block Size (10 points, 3 comments)
    8. Newly Appointed Goldman Sachs Vice President Leaves for Cryptocurrency (7 points, 5 comments)
    9. OKEx CEO Quits as Exchange Becomes World’s Largest Surpassing Binance (7 points, 2 comments)
    10. Texas Regulators Shut Down Crypto Scam, Falsely Using Jennifer Aniston and Prince Charles for Promotion (6 points, 0 comments)
  33. 174 points, 31 submissions: MarkoVidrih
    1. US Regulators Agree That They Will Not Will Not Suppress Cryptocurrencies (96 points, 10 comments)
    2. Why Stable Coins Are the New Central Bank Money (28 points, 9 comments)
    3. First Facebook, Then Google, Twitter and LinkedIn, Now Microsoft’s Bing Will Ban All Cryptocurrency Ads (10 points, 2 comments)
    4. Circle Raises $110 Mln and Plans to Use Circle USD Coin (USDC) instead of Tether (USDT) (9 points, 1 comment)
    5. 9 Million New Users Are About to Enter in Crypto Market (4 points, 6 comments)
    6. Japan’s Largest Commercial Bank Will Try its Own Cryptocurrency in 2019 (4 points, 0 comments)
    7. The Viability of the ERC-948 Protocol Proposal (4 points, 0 comments)
    8. A letter from Legendary VC Fred Wilson to Buffet: The Value of Bitcoin Lies in the Agreement Itself (3 points, 1 comment)
    9. This is Just The Beginning of Crypto! (3 points, 0 comments)
    10. What? U.S. SEC Just Launches ICO Called HoweyCoin (3 points, 2 comments)
  34. 170 points, 2 submissions: plaguewiind
    1. Twitter restricting accounts that mention Blockstream (104 points, 49 comments)
    2. This is actually fantastic! Jimmy Nguyen on ‘The Future of Bitcoin (Cash)’ at The University of Exeter (66 points, 31 comments)
  35. 168 points, 1 submission: MartinGandhiKennedy
    1. [COMPELLING EVIDENCE] Proof that Luke Jr does not lie (168 points, 41 comments)
  36. 167 points, 1 submission: higher-plane
    1. BCH showerthought: The first one or two killer apps for Bitcoin Cash that drive mass adoption will be the thing that decides the standards/denominations based on what people are using and catches on. Not a small forum poll or incessantly loud Twitter spam. (167 points, 24 comments)
  37. 160 points, 1 submission: SharkLaserrrrr
    1. [PREVIEW] Looks like Lighthouse powered by Bitcoin Cash is coming together nicely thanks to the hard work of an anonymous developer. I wonder how Mike Hearn feels about his project being resurrected. (160 points, 24 comments)
  38. 160 points, 1 submission: playfulexistence
    1. Lightning Network user has trouble with step 18 (160 points, 165 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. bambarasta (898 points, 154 comments)
  2. Kain_niaK (706 points, 177 comments)
  3. Ant-n (691 points, 145 comments)
  4. H0dl (610 points, 116 comments)
  5. Adrian-X (538 points, 93 comments)
  6. KoKansei (536 points, 35 comments)
  7. LovelyDay (456 points, 78 comments)
  8. 324JL (444 points, 109 comments)
  9. LexGrom (428 points, 132 comments)
  10. Erumara (427 points, 44 comments)
  11. lubokkanev (404 points, 119 comments)
  12. LuxuriousThrowAway (397 points, 66 comments)
  13. rdar1999 (387 points, 82 comments)
  14. zcc0nonA (379 points, 100 comments)
  15. MemoryDealers (369 points, 18 comments)
  16. RollieMe (366 points, 29 comments)
  17. Churn (352 points, 32 comments)
  18. jimbtc (349 points, 72 comments)
  19. btcnewsupdates (338 points, 61 comments)
  20. blockthestream (338 points, 25 comments)
  21. SharkLaserrrrr (335 points, 33 comments)
  22. kondratiex (311 points, 80 comments)
  23. trolldetectr (306 points, 58 comments)
  24. ForkiusMaximus (300 points, 47 comments)
  25. jonald_fyookball (300 points, 35 comments)
  26. mccormack555 (294 points, 78 comments)
  27. playfulexistence (292 points, 40 comments)
  28. scotty321 (287 points, 46 comments)
  29. BitcoinXio (269 points, 23 comments)
  30. TiagoTiagoT (263 points, 96 comments)
  31. Bitcoinopoly (260 points, 39 comments)
  32. homopit (249 points, 48 comments)
  33. DoomedKid (249 points, 41 comments)
  34. cryptorebel (246 points, 54 comments)
  35. Deadbeat1000 (243 points, 36 comments)
  36. mrtest001 (239 points, 78 comments)
  37. BeijingBitcoins (235 points, 16 comments)
  38. tippr (227 points, 122 comments)
  39. chainxor (226 points, 24 comments)
  40. emergent_reasons (222 points, 56 comments)
  41. morli (221 points, 1 comment)
  42. patrick99e99 (220 points, 8 comments)
  43. crasheger (214 points, 39 comments)
  44. ---Ed--- (213 points, 81 comments)
  45. radmege (212 points, 35 comments)
  46. anberlinz (212 points, 33 comments)
  47. unstoppable-cash (211 points, 46 comments)
  48. taipalag (210 points, 35 comments)
  49. rowdy_beaver (210 points, 25 comments)
  50. RareJahans (206 points, 45 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate.. by VanquishAudio (582 points, 113 comments)
  2. Breaking News: Winklevoss Brothers Bitcoin Exchange Adds Bitcoin Cash support! by tralxz (510 points, 115 comments)
  3. Purse.io is paying its employees in Bitcoin Cash. by hunk_quark (441 points, 63 comments)
  4. Frances Coppola on Twitter: “Congratulations, Blockstream, you have just reinvented the interbank lending market.” by BitcoinXio (414 points, 139 comments)
  5. Forbes Author Frances Coppola takes blockstream to task. by hunk_quark (359 points, 35 comments)
  6. UPGRADE COMPLETE by bearjewpacabra (349 points, 378 comments)
  7. I am getting flashbacks from when I tried to close my Bank of America account ... by Kain_niaK (348 points, 155 comments)
  8. Congrats! Bitcoin Cash is now capable of a 32MB block size, and new OP_CODES are reactivated! by Devar0 (342 points, 113 comments)
  9. Purse CEO Andrew Lee confirms they are paying employees in BCH and native BCH integration update will be coming soon! by hunk_quark (334 points, 43 comments)
  10. Congrats BCH developers, we appreciate your work here and continued innovation by Libertymark (287 points, 79 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 221 points: morli's comment in Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate..
  2. 181 points: patrick99e99's comment in I used to think BCH was the bad guy, now I'm beginning to change the way I see it... Convince me that BCH is the real Bitcoin
  3. 173 points: RollieMe's comment in Trying to see both sides of the scaling debate
  4. 151 points: blockthestream's comment in Bitcoin Core supporter who scammed his way into consensus without a ticket is busy calling Bitcoin.com and others scammers at the event.
  5. 136 points: seleneum's comment in I am getting flashbacks from when I tried to close my Bank of America account ...
  6. 132 points: Falkvinge's comment in Talking to himself makes it so obvious that they're the same. lol
  7. 127 points: MemoryDealers's comment in Bitcoin Core supporter who scammed his way into consensus without a ticket is busy calling Bitcoin.com and others scammers at the event.
  8. 119 points: BitcoinXio's comment in Frances Coppola on Twitter: “Congratulations, Blockstream, you have just reinvented the interbank lending market.”
  9. 116 points: Erumara's comment in I used to think BCH was the bad guy, now I'm beginning to change the way I see it... Convince me that BCH is the real Bitcoin
  10. 115 points: KoKansei's comment in Purse.io Introduces 'bcash', an Implementation of the BCH protocol, just like ABC, BU, or Classic
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

These 25 top-voted posts from r/btc this week show that users and miners are working on real solutions to help Bitcoin move forward, while Core/Blockstream are obstructing progress and losing support. Please help spread this information (including translating for the Chinese-speaking community)!

Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Block Size Increase Hard Fork
~ tylev
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kpgxt/antpool_will_not_run_segwit_without_block_size/
So, this is exactly the situation the Classic code was meant to prevent.
Fixing the issue before it becomes an issue. Classic was correct and full blocks are the largest problem that Bitcoin faces.
~ Annapurna317
Leaders of Core had a childish little selfish tantrum about wanting to work on what cool stuff they wanted to build and wouldn't listen.
It would have been relatively safe and easy to introduce the 2mb HF if it was progressed collectively and collaboratively with good will by all parties.
All of this could have been avoided long ago. There is one person who is very influential who we know to be adamant about blocks being confined to 1mb.
~ papabitcoin
Hardfork in July 2017 will be too late.
If you read the statement by Peter "I don't have a clue about economics" Todd you might start to puke.
“Unfortunately Bitcoin simply doesn't scale well" How about you start to tell what exactly doesn't scale you fuckhead?
P.S.: The blockchain is growing indefinitely, if you don't like that fact you should choose something else than cryptocurrencies or come up with a better way.
~ satoshis_sockpuppet
This is classic narrowmindedness on PT's part.
He'd also be the first one to say that the internet is not sustainable as it produces exponentially more and more data.
These guys are fucking idiots and really have no idea what they are talking about, all they see is "BLOAT!" and "TOO BIG FOR CURRENT NODES!" then react accordingly without even thinking about the fact that Bitcoin's usefulness mitigates these limiting factors almost entirely.
~ ferretinjapan
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.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
Gavin Andresen: Bitcoin Protocol Role Models
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l0ugy/gavin_andresen_bitcoin_protocol_role_models/
http://gavinandresen.ninja/bitcoin-protocol-role-models
There are limits on routing table sizes, but they are not top-down-specified-in-a-standards-document protocol limits.
They are organic limits that arise from whatever hardware is available and from the (sometimes very contentious!) interaction of the engineers keeping the Internet backbone up and running.
~ Gavin
We've long established that the 1mb limit (or their refusal to remove it) has absolutely nothing to do with technical concerns.
It's a political matter, whose raison d'être we can only infer.
Time to stop the bullshit and the [s]quabbling. Chinese miners wake up! Time to try something new. It quite literally can't be worse than what's going on right now.
~ redlightsaber
Fred Ehrsam / Coinbase basically says that Ethereum is the future of cryptocurrency
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kvqwj/fred_ehrsam_coinbase_basically_says_that_ethereum/
https://medium.com/the-coinbase-blog/ethereum-is-the-forefront-of-digital-currency-5300298f6c75#.4wqiu5njb
Bitcoin has become embroiled in debate over the block size - an important topic for the health of the network, but not something that should halt progress in a young and rapidly developing field.
The developer community in Bitcoin feels fairly dormant. Bitcoin never really made it past the stage of simple wallets and exchanges.
Bitcoin’s “leadership” is ... toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of Core developers, recently referred to other Core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well-meaning dips***s.”
~ huntingisland
This was a good sobering read.
It is also worth noting that Coinbase was left with little choice but to broaden its offerings given the current state of Bitcoin usability ...
When BS hijacked BTC away from being money, it screwed a lot of business and usage plans. ...
Praise be to the free market and the market place of ideas.
~ veintiuno
REPOST from 12/2015: "If there are only 20 seats on the bus and 25 people that want to ride, there is no ticket price where everyone gets a seat. Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they are fixed by adding seats, which in this case means raising the blocksize cap."Vibr8gKiwi
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kfqyj/repost_from_122015_if_there_are_only_20_seats_on/
By the way, this shows that a certain other trending OP from today:
Why all the disinformation? Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees. Currently $0.05
...is total bullshit.
But that other OP was posted in an echo-chamber of censorship (r\bitcoin).
That is dangerous (for them), because it allows them to enjoy the illusion that they are right - when in reality, they are wrong, because they are ignoring the fact that full blocks DO matter: because the overflow goes elsewhere (into fiat, into alts, etc.).
~ ydtm
We just got Blockstreamed! (Coinbase rebranding away from BTC)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k455s/we_just_got_blockstreamed_coinbase_rebranding/
Coinbase Exchange to Rebrand Following Ethereum Trading Launch
http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-exchange-rebrand-ethereum-trading/
Bitcoin exchange and wallet service Coinbase is adding support for ether, the native cryptocurrency of the Ethereum network. ...
This is quite significant. I would interpret this as a loss of confidence in Blockstream to provide what customers need in a timely manner.
While Blockstream wastes time figuring out how to stuff all the world's transaction data into their beloved tiny blocks, the market will move on to solutions that can actually scale and can scale NOW.
Blockstream: The world will not wait for you.
~ objectivist72
Gavin finally speaks - they are "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"
~ aquentin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4koywo/gavin_finally_speaks_they_are_rearranging_the/
Gavin could post that the sky is blue and it would generate a shitstorm of controversy.
~ borg
Opinions on Gavin over there are variously:
1 - Why aren't you coding for Core?
2 - Which agency do you work for?
3 - Haha classic suxxor
A very telling series of questions that the false agenda has fermented and sunk in.
~ nanoakron
Core has solved the scalability issue!
By keeping the blocksize at 1MB they have motivated users to look to other blockchains. Problem solved!
~ solled
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k5k80/core_has_solved_the_scalability_issue/
It's actually kind of brilliant !
Think about it: no need for super dangerous hard forks, and not even soft forks. No new code needed, no testing, nothing.
All it took was 2-3 years of endless stalling, organizing some fake conventions, a bit of character assassination and demonization here and there, nothing major. Done.
It was actually very well-thought-out. Congratulations and hat off to nullc adam3us and all their drones.
~ realistbtc
Bitcoin is a giant, global "Consensus-tron" based on a fundamental meta-rule: "51% Consensus based on Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Blockstream/Core is trying change this meta-rule, to make it "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") - the MOST CONTENTIOUS change conceivable in Bitcoin
The main characteristic of Bitcoin is that it is basically a kind of global "consensus-producing machine" or "Consensus-tron" - which runs based on a fundamental meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" - also called "Nakamoto Consensus".
Recently, Blockstream has started trying to quietly change this fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin based on "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus").
Instead, they have proposed a totally different meta-rule based on "95% Consensus" - which they like to call "Strong Consensus", but a better name would probably be "Extreme Consensus", to show what an extreme change it would be.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l45p1/bitcoin_is_a_giant_global_consensustron_based_on/
Every binary vote has an opposite side. 95% consensus is actually 5% consensus of the opposing team. Would you like a 5% consensus system? No? Then you wouldn't like a 95% consensus system.
That's why 50% is the only valid threshold -- because it's the only one that makes both sides equal.
~ kingofthejaffacakes
The only real threshold is 51%.
~ Ant-n
Continuing on this road , soon Coinbase and Circle will probably allow to send and receive Ether, and Coinbase and Bitpay will offer the option to pay in Ether. At that point Gregonomic fee pressure will go out of the window.
The first mover led the ground work, but it's not an exclusive advantage.
Bitcoin needs to wake up from the Blockstream-induced coma !!!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8c8g/continuing_on_this_road_soon_coinbase_and_circle/
This is so painfully obvious. The users do not want a "fee market". Blockstream is absolutely hell-bent on giving us one, despite there being no need for a "fee market" at this point in time. Therefore the free market will do its job and provide an alternative to Bitcoin, and the users will move to the alternative where they will get what they actually want.
~ objectivist72
Bitcoin users are speaking out, and they want bigger blocks. Compare these 2 OPs: r\bitcoin: "Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees" (100 upvotes) vs btc: "Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they can only be fixed by raising the blocksize cap" (200 upvotes)
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kjxrb/bitcoin_users_are_speaking_out_and_they_want/
The block size issue has turned me off to bitcoin entirely, I no longer evangelize, no longer buy or use them. Blockstream has destroyed all the good-will I had for Bitcoin.
Once the block sizes are larger, and continue rising with use, I'll be interested again. until then, Bitcoin can wallow in the fail
~ jmdugan
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/
Peak idiocy imminent @Blockstream-Core? Or not yet?
~ Shock_The_Stream
Just to confirm, that is the CTO of Blockstream calling the President of Blockstream a "dipshit" on a public forum.
~ Leithm
Andreas "I believe this is called a "Mexican Standoff". No segwit no HF. No HF, no segwit. Compromise time."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kq2dm/andreas_i_believe_this_is_called_a_mexican/
2mb WAS the compromise FFS.
~ tailsta
I thought 8MB was the compromise.
~ dskloet
Actually 20MB was the compromise. The original plan was to just remove the cap and let miners implement their own norms.
~ ForkiusMaximus
Damn fucking straight, the larger block side has been compromising for over a year and they have refused to compromise from day one.
Now is not the time to compromise, now is the time to sweep them aside as they have brought nothing to the table.
These devs shouldn't even be given the time of day considering their open contempt for larger blocks and the miners should be finding devs that will give them what they need, rather than trying to negotiate with asshats that refuse to negotiate.
~ ferretinjapan
"It's truly funny how blockstream are dead against 2mb of block data using traditional transactions along with linear signature validation... but blindly think that 2.85mb of segwit + confidential payment codes + other features is acceptable."
And also funny that their roadmap allows for 5.7mb blocks when blockstream decide its ok for the hard fork.. yet they cant explain what network bandwidth restrictions are currently preventing 2mb now but weirdly and suddenly not an issue for 5.7mb next year...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kn960/its_truly_funny_how_blockstream_are_dead_against/
It's a matter of ego and politics. From a computer science standpoint, Adam Back wanted the 2-4-8 mb scaling originally, which would have been completely safe (and smart).
Segwit is required for the Lightning Network and some other things Blockstream wants to centralize and profit from.
No better way to get something you need in there than making it necessary for scaling and saying it's the best solution.
Segwit is a backwards approach compared to the easier and cleaner solution of increasing the blocksize
~ Annapurna317
maaku7: "I don't know anyone who is actually working on a hard fork right now (although I'm sure someone is). Keep in mind very few core developers were at the HK meeting and that 'agreement' is mostly not acceptable to those who were not there."
The Hongkong Farce. Great job Core and Chinese/Georgian 'miners'!
~ Shock_The_Stream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k74cmaaku7_i_dont_know_anyone_who_is_actually_working/
HF will never happen unless miners switch client. The problem is miners still trust Adam & Co.
The day Mike Hearn left, he told me: "Both Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell are extremely skilled manipulators, timewasters and both of them have been caught lying red handed. I strongly suggest you just ignore both of them. I do not plan to take part in Bitcoin related discussions further".
From my experience, Adam will tell you whatever you want to hear, but do something different behind your back.
Just look at his presentations he gave to the miners and others, they are full of lies and inaccuracies. This isn't rocket science.
I just can't understand why people keep buying bullshit from a guy who's not even a core dev, but president of a company that only benefits from making sure Bitcoin itself is crippled so people are forced offchain.
~ olivierjanss
That was known opinion by Mark [Friedenbach, maaku7].
He said right after HK that it is not Core's agreement, that individual developers there were not representatives for Core.
And that the HF block limit increase is not an option.
I don't know what are miners still expecting and waiting for.
~ r1q2
Is this information being sent to the Chinese bitcoin community?
Who is doing that?
How does information like this not immediately change the ballgame?
~ 8yo90
There's more than enough developer talent in the Bitcoin space to ensure a hard fork comes off successfully, but the Core developers have divided the community with lies to make it more difficult to pull off. Instead of helping achieve it, they have created community-wide FUD.
~ Reddit_My_Life_Away
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ku44w/theres_more_than_enough_developer_talent_in_the/
My opinion is that we can't have Blockstream at all involved in Bitcoin any longer.
If you keep them involved, even after a blocksize increase, we will suffer in the future.
Similar to malware, you have to remove it.
~ mti985
This is the correct way to decide "maximum blocksize"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kwntk/this_is_the_correct_way_to_decide_maximum/
https://i.imgur.com/UTUMSwzl.png
I'm very happy to see you researching Bitcoin Unlimited!
~ Peter__R
Mike Hearn: Bitcoin’s “Young, Unripened Democracy” Suffers Under Authoritarian Developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8o7x/mike_hearn_bitcoins_young_unripened_democracy/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mike-hearn-bitcoin-democracy/
Hearn describes in the interview how people in the developer scene do not truly want the cryptocurrency to be decentralized.
“They say they want so, but that’s not what they want. Bitcoin is a young, unripened Democracy, in which a group of developers hold the power. And this group is desperately trying to prevent a real vote on the future of Bitcoin.”
...
“[They] won’t vote against Core, because [they’ve] been told voting is dangerous,” Hearn elucidates. “The miners are not per se against proposals to increase the capacity, such as something like Bitcoin Classic wants. The miners refuse to vote. At this point, some developers, including myself, lost interest, because we realized it no longer was a debate about the block size. Suddenly it was trying to convince Chinese people democracy is a good thing.”
~ Mike Hearn
Sadly, he sounds like the voice of reason in a world gone mad.
~ realistbtc
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch.
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/fa44a78d7d6f6a2e0536e611e43093a8/tumblr_inline_mjh5diUr7t1qz4rgp.jpg
PSA: when someone asks for info about a transaction getting stuck, stop saying that the fee was too low or his wallet did something wrong. The correct answer is that currently Bitcoin is broken.
~ realistbtc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k44cf/psa_when_someone_ask_for_info_about_a_transaction/
Artificial capacity restraint by Core devs is the correct answer.
~ flamingboard
This is so true.
I mean, look at the logic.
If $0.01 is not enough, and everyone sets it at $1.00, then it is still not enough because the number of transactions at the 'higher' price is still too many and blocks are still full with transactions being ignored.
~ canadiandev
This is why I think Blockstream's mission is to hurt bitcoin.
I cannot believe that they genuinely can be so stupid to ignore this aspect.
~ usrn
The core devs (Wladimir and Maxwell) do not care about the price of bitcoin. They do not care to give investors a clear indication of what capacity will be in the near or mid future. This is contrary to the fact that everything else is known. Roger Ver is right.
Investors (Hodlers) are a large part of what makes bitcoin valuable. Without a clear indication of what capacity is going to be in the future there is no clear indication of what the worth of Bitcoin actually is.
~ specialenmity
Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin.
Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin.
~ Roger Ver / ~ MemoryDealers
Gregory Maxwell (nullc) & /bitcoin have deleted my posts
They have also banned me from any discussion on their subreddit.
I was simply posting that Gregory Maxwell (nullc) is lying when he says "the Chinese Bitcoin community stands behind us".
This is false, they do not.
In fact, a respected member from the Chinese Bitcoin community said this: "Do you know that what you are doing is harming bitcoin by spreading misinformation? I'm from China. I can just tell you the common sense in the Chinese Community of Bitcoin. No one likes BlockStream now! People in China all know that it is Greg Maxwell who is blocking bitcoin by limiting block size. I dare say, your company can never develop any business in China in the future."
~ taxed4ever
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l6p57/gregory_maxwell_nullc_rbitcoin_have_deleted_my/
Jihan of Antpool, great response in regards to Chinese Bitcoin discussion on /bitcoin I was banned from:
Maxwell,
When you talking about "in fact", it smells like no fact. You are spreading very serious rumors about the mining network situation. Antpool has been connected to Relay Network and also testing a new network called Falcon after being invited. The total network orphan rate has been keeping lower and lower in the past months, which is an evidence that the network is working in a much better situation. Antpool in the past April have only 1 orphaned block, which is an evidence that there is no selfish mining situation - a selfish mining attack will generate higher orphan rate on both competitors and attackers. On the https://poolbench.antminer.link/, you can find ... the performance of a mining pool. (This is a third party site, this is fact.)
Antpool and other mining pools had made the position clear as water since in the Hong Kong meeting, that SegWit+HF [is] coming as package. If you just realized right now, ... the communication problem inside Core, you cannot blame anyone else. We will not activ[ate] the SegWit until seeing the promised (by "individuals" yes I know Maxwell could not be represented) HF code being released in Bitcoin Core. If everything is progressed according the HK Consensus, the SegWit will not be stalled. The SegWit as a very th[o]rough improvement/change [and] will need to be carefully tested and reviewed after its release, at least for several months. During which time the HF can be proposed, defined, implemented and released. While the max blocksize limit lifting can be activated later, but as the code is already contained in the release, most of the economic nodes in the network will be compatible with the coming blocksize bumping up.
Bitcoin is a worldwide economy infrastructure and it requires working together and moving forward. Greg, you need to have some self control from talking like a human flesh fascist propaganda machine, trying to attack anyone who disagree with you.
Please don't tag those concerns as "pro-altcoin". (Another evidence of your problematic speaking style.) The concerns are genuine concerns. Some of the concerns coming from people who hold very large stake of Bitcoin since early time. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the town. I also see some small blockers are very active in the competing coin development. You cannot use this methods to distinguish people at all. Then stop judging people's intention and unrelated behavior but focus on the problem itself.
The only thing I have to add is that you can't wait for Mr. Maxwell and his company to deliver their promise. It is a toxic arrangement and we need to focus on looking past them, repairing the damage and working towards the future. When there are too many lies and scandal involved, you have to cut your losses and walk away. Investors around the world will be confident once we start making firm moves. Positive press from Forbes will help repair confidence with investors.
Either way, thank you!
We are all committed to working together.
~ taxed4ever
This is fine.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kqdh8/this_is_fine/
http://imgur.com/KdfJI2G
~ bitkong-me
Picture characterizing the situation very well!
~ Amichateur
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)
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8kda/in_successful_opensource_software_projects_the/
ashmoran explains why Blockstream's behavior flies in the face of the Agile Manifesto, a guide that is widely applicable to open-source software development:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4asyc9/collaboration_requires_communication/d13av94?context=2
The essence of Gavin's point reminded me of the things the Agile Manifesto was meant to address. ...
The behaviour of Blockstream is like the most pathological cases of capital-E Enterprise software development I've seen.
~ BobsBurgers4Bitcoin
Samsung Mow: "@austinhill @Blockstream Now it's time to see if Greg Maxwell is part of the solution or the problem."
~ Egon_1
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/
Not enough popcorn in the world for this.
~ kanaarrt
Samson Mow is part of the problem.
~ Domrada
Chairman Mow can be a very annoying creature
~ hiddensphinx
He makes bad choices, he's unprofessional, he's cost us money, the list goes on and on.
~ mfkusa
Trouble on the home front.
I don't think Greg has it in him to "give in"; he has to be "right" at all costs.
~ buddhamangler
This is what I'm hoping, as, "giving in" will mean he'll walk away from Bitcoin.
~ ferretinjapan
Why is it not recognized that ANY block size limit is a hack on a hack
Bitcoin will NOT work right until the size limit hack is removed entirely. The limit is being leveraged to justify many actions. All of which would be moot if the limit did not exist.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kbcaa/why_is_it_not_recognized_that_any_block_size/
You're absolutely right. Miners have always regulated the size of their own blocks and still do.
We see it in the form of excluding zero-fee transactions, SPV mining, spam filtering, etc.
They will do the same without a limit.
All in the name of maintaining profitability.
~ cypherdoc2
It's true that almost every single argument Core makes for limiting the blocksize, if correct, should be what the miners/investors would do anyway if left to their own devices.
~ ForkiusMaximus
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

EB25 - Mike Hearn: Lighthouse, Assurance Contracts, bitcoinj, Transaction Fees & Core Dev Team Andrew Chow - Hardware Wallets in Bitcoin Core Bitcoin SF Devs Seminar: Understanding Bitcoinj and Married Wallets with 37Coins World War III, State Of Alarm/High Alert, Bitcoin And Ripple XRP WILL BITCOIN PASS $20000 IN 2019?

All Bitcoin News. All Bitcoin discussion. All the time. BitcoinAll. jump to content. my subreddits. edit subscriptions. popular-all-random-users AskReddit-news-funny-pics-aww-worldnews-gaming-todayilearned-television-gifs-Showerthoughts-Jokes-videos-tifu-mildlyinteresting-TwoXChromosomes-OldSchoolCool-space-creepy -nottheonion-books-movies-personalfinance-LifeProTips-IAmA-explainlikeimfive ... Launch of Bitcoin XT by Mike Hearn et Gavin Andresen (Bitcoin Core developers) 01-15-2016: 9.90 −18.1: Mike Hearn quits Bitcoin: 04-27-2016: 4.32 −5.0: Payment institution status for Bitstamp: 05-28-2016: 5.51: 10.4: Bankruptcy of KnCMiner: 06-12-2016: 3.98: 9.9: Attack on Etherrum network: 08-02-2016: 4.63 −9.4: Theft on Bitfinex ... A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are... Bitcoin slid by 10 percent on Friday after one of its lead developers, Mike Hearn, said in a blogpost that he was ending his involvement with the cryptocurrency and selling all of his remaining ... Bitcoin News The End is Near! – Mike Hearn on Bitcoin. It is indeed a sad day for the Bitcoin community as one of its core developers Mike Hearn decided to call it quits.

[index] [43990] [3799] [41308] [47933] [34983] [31711] [41511] [3369] [23065] [44782]

EB25 - Mike Hearn: Lighthouse, Assurance Contracts, bitcoinj, Transaction Fees & Core Dev Team

Mike Hearn Bitcoin Core Developer About Smart Contracts - Duration: 26 minutes. Naation. 5 years ago ; 136 views; Reposted from Newfination. 2013 interview. Naation uploaded a video 5 years ago 4 ... Get to know how to create Bitcoin wallet..... Check here for complete tutorial: ... Mike Hearn, Bitcoin Core Developer, About Smart Contracts And Smart Property - Duration: 26:41. Newfination. 26 ... Save $19.80 On CoolWalletS Hard Wallet(Members Only) SAVE $59.90 (Two Months FREE) When You Open An IRA With iTrustCapital.com To Grow Your XRP Tax Free(Members Only) The effort to build Corda was lead by R3 CTO Richard Brown and the former Bitcoin developer and R3 lead architect Mike Hearn. In a wide-ranging discussion, we covered the vision of the project and ... The number of wallets holding between 1,000 and 10,000 bitcoin has seen a major increase since the crypto market bottomed out during the crypto winter, indicating significant accumulation during ...

#