Bitcoin’s lead developer quits, says the digital currency ...

I recently recounted the history of the block size controversy for someone and thought I'd repost it here

Bitcoin development was initially led by an anonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto who created the project "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System"
The project mostly languished in obscurity until in late 2010 it was revealed that Bitcoin was being used to evade the ban on Wikileaks contributions. (A good summary of Bitcoin's early history can be found here.)
Satoshi was opposed to Bitcoin being used for something as controversial as funding Wikileaks, and in one of his last messages, wrote "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us." (link). Satoshi vanished shortly thereafter.
When Satoshi disappeared, he left the project effectively in the control of Gavin Andresen, one of the early contributors to the project. Gavin has been characterized as something of a naive academic. It wasn't long before Gavin had been approached by the CIA and agreed to visit and do a presentation. So we know that Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar by 2011.
Bitcoin-as-introduced had an Achilles heel. To prevent a specific kind of denial-of-service attack, Satoshi had added a "block size limit" to prevent flooding attacks. Satoshi's plan was to raise the limit as usage increased. Satoshi and the early Bitcoiners such as myself did not envision that the limit might itself be a vulnerability. A near-complete history of the block size limit controversy is here. I'll attempt to summarize my experience with some references.
Now it's almost 2020, and by now we've all become much more attuned to the scope of what three-letter-agencies have been doing to manipulate social media platforms. But in 2012 that was tinfoil-hat stuff across most of the internet.
In 2012, the Bitcoin subreddit was one of the key places people went for discussion about what was happening in Bitcoin. That, and the bitcointalk forum. The history of what happened has been well documented with sources in places like here and here.
The TLDR is
Throughout all of this, Blockstream steadfastly argued that it didn't control the Bitcoin Core software. Blockstream pointed to Chaincode Labs who funded several key bitcoin developers and the MIT Media Labs "Digital Currency Initiative" who funded Gavin, Cory, and Wladimir. Gavin and Wladimir in particular had the authority to merge changes into the Bitcoin Core software and as such effectively could decide what did and did not go into the software. As an ostensibly academic organization, Gavin and Wladimir etc could act with intellectual honesty and without coercion.
Except Gavin left the Digital Currency Initiative in 2017, saying that while he wasn't pressured to quit, he "didn't want to feel obligated to any person or organization."
Fast forward to 2019, and we learn the fascinating news that the MIT Media Labs were funded in part by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, who it turns out just so happened to be a staunch advocate of the Blockstream approach. So really, Bitcoin development was corralled: Blockstream was paying a bunch of devs, and Blockstream-Friendly MIT Media Labs were paying the others.
If you're still reading this, you probably wonder what it is about the Blockstream strategy that is so "bad." Aren't they just proposing a different way to solve Bitcoin's problems?
The original idea for Bitcoin was a "peer to peer cash system" - - the idea being that if Alice wants to buy something from Bob, she can just give him some tokens - - just like cash.
The new vision of bitcoin promoted by Blockstream and Core is "store of value". Under this model, you buy Bitcoins like you might speculate on gold - you buy some and you hold it. Later, if you want to purchase something, you sell your Bitcoins for some other payment method (or use an IOU against a deposit, just like a bank), and use that for purchases.
It should be apparent after a moment of thought that the original concept (Alice hands Bob some cash which Bob can then spend how he likes) is vastly more disruptive than the model in which Alice buys Bitcoin on a government-regulated exchange, holds them hoping they'll appreciate in value, and then sells them for Euros or dollars. In model one, the currency is essentially outside the domain of gatekeepers, and could completely disintermediate the entire existing financial system just like Napster for money. In model two, Bitcoin is no more disruptive than shares of a gold fund.
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

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]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

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

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

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

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

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

Full blocks are not a disaster

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

Segwit

What is segwit

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

Why is segwit being blocked

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

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

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

What if segwit never activates

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

Lightning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

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

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

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

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

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

Fighting off 2x HF

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

Misinformation / sockpuppets

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

History

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

Misc (mostly memes)

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

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

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

I propose to start a 'class action' lawsuit against all the companies and individuals involved with S2X/NYA in any capacity. Hear me out:

Edit- For all the people saying that we shouldn't use the law against S2X. Thanks exab for this post Satoshi's verdict: Use laws to protect yourself and Bitcoin!
Satoshi's source code (comment) in every file he created:
// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
I trust it ends the narrative that we should not use laws to protect ourselves or Bitcoin.
We don't need to wait anymore, certainly not until they do a real damage to the Bitcoin structure or decentralization, we have now enough documented evidence of malicious intent and fraud. We will give an ultimatum and a one week grace period to give a chance to drop out before a company/individual is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. It is time we organize properly, like they did, and defend against this ridiculous and malicious take-over attempt.
This is an actual Trojan Horse and we are welcoming in with our complacency by saying: "Bitcoin has survived all past attacks, honeybadger don't care", don't forget that 'honeybadger' is all of us, united. This attack is not like the others, this one has the backing of the most powerful companies in the space plus most of the miners.
They want to succeed were the banker's special forces led by Blythe Masters failed to infiltrate and highjack Bitcoin since she was well known by many people and could not run incognito.
Now they are doing it from the inside, including the purchase of weak-morals developers like Garzik, Hearn and Andersen, as well as entrepreneurs like Ver, Voorhees, Jihan and Pair (maybe even Armstrong).
Stop underestimating these people, they are very smart and have very deep pockets (hundreds of billions of printed to infinity fiat deep).
Here is a list of the people who should not be trusted at all and many of them will probably be listed as defendants: Gavin Andersen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham and Brian Armstrong.
By now, they should be considered as enemies of Bitcoin and decentralization. Their credibility, reputation, and businesses will be run into the ground by no other than their own greed, selfishness and seek for more power and control, unless they come out publicly against S2X/NYA.
We, the people/users/nodes, and the hardworking and honest Core developers are the honeybadger: WE ARE BITCOIN. This is not FUD, Bitcoin will survive, there is no way to put it back into Pandora's Box, but we need to be conscious that we can easily avoid any damage if we remain united. Let's swarm the S2X/NYA beast and show it the real power of Decentralization. Exciting times we are living... this will be fun!
Edit- Great post on btc against S2X... This attack is so blatant that even they are seeing through it now. OP is a well-known poster there (strongly anti-bitcoin and strong bcash supporter), the post is surprisingly being upvoted and even gilded:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/743qb8/is_segwit2x_the_real_banker_takeove
DCG (digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I think I just figured out how to beat the 51% attack, with no drawbacks

So the 51% attack has been a hot topic lately for obvious reasons. Not only that, I think it's THE topic on everyone's mind even if nobody is officially saying it. There is evidence here, here, here and I think even here...
The elephant nobody is acknowledging remains in the room. Accordingly I've been thinking of good defensive strategies a lot over these last days. The day before the fork I submitted an article outlining a new defense model:
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9x5gmn/bitcoins_model_is_antiquated_moving_beyond/
For some reason it got zero upvotes (actually a downvote to zero) and no worthwhile discussion. Hopefully this submission fares better. I do think the defense I outlined is quite viable, but I acknowledge the costly move toward centralization. So I continued thinking of ways to further improve defense and I think I've got something that works without any added centralization pressure. It's surprisingly simple, with only two general changes being made.
First, there is a consensus rule change saying no node accepts a re-organization over 5 blocks long, at least, not without explicit manual override (useful in cases of unintentional chain splits). There shouldn't ever be a case where nodes suddenly learn of 6 or more blocks having valid rules and proper difficulty they were previously unaware of. The only situations where that would be expected is a bug creating a chain split, or an intentional hashpower attack to create disruption. As stated, an override can handle bugs, so the remaining issue should be edited out completely. This gives the ecosystem assurance that as often stated 6 confirmations means settlement certainty.
Astute observers will recognize an obvious problem: nodes attempting to sync won't ever be aware of rejected re-organizations since they would satisfy all chain requirements otherwise. This is easily resolved by having all nodes sync backwards. A node synchronizing from the highest block perceived from the network's perspective will include all rules of that network, including one rejecting lengthy real-time re-organizations.
So those are the only two changes to the way we currently do things, but 51% attacks are rendered impotent! As for where nodes get the highest block that's easy to accommodate. Nodes compatible with BIP 0064 (authored by Mike Hearn) already have access to 'chain height' and 'chain tip hash' when querying for UTXO lookups. Those return values coincide with the moment the result was calculated, though, so a better, explicitly most recent height and hash service might be preferable. Nodes then use the broadest consensus.
This does open the door slightly to Sybil attacks. However, an attacker would need to be working alongside the entity performing the broader re-org attack, and any harmful effects are limited to the effectively isolated and Sybil'd node(s). Since synchronization events are rare there might be a bootstrap 'sanity' list similar to the current DNS seed which is used to compare the information the node receives with IPs developers deem trustworthy (e.g. Bitcoin.com, BitPay etc), which would also defeat a Sybil attack.
The DoS portion of a 51% attack is also solvable with simple changes such as adding tx prority weighting (mentioned in my article) to determine the best chain.
submitted by cryptos4pz to btc [link] [comments]

It is time to unite, organize and squeeze-out any possible viability for S2X/NYA.

And the simplest, cheapest, fastest and more efficient way to do it is this one:
Expose to the sunlight what DCG is and who is behind it
First, let's just post the links to the sites listing all the companies supporting the attack for quick reference:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Then, let's post a list of the individuals still supporting this attack despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them about how and why S2X is not only totally pointless from the technical as well as economical (benefit for the whole ecosystem and not just a few) points of view and also about how and why S2X is an open attack on Bitcoin.
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite, that is as a system, but we, as individuals, do care and must be proactively working against this attack.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets, so here they are:
Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins and Jiang Zhuoer.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
Edit: Formatting.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A Short Simple History of Bitcoin Core/Bitcoin Cash. Please correct any mistakes. Just looking to make as simple as possible list of how we got here.

Bitcoin history
  1. Satoshi came up with the idea
  2. Published the idea on the Internet
  3. Satoshi, Gavin Andresen, & Mike Hearn, developed a GitHub repo.
  4. Satoshi disappeared, Gavin Andresen invited Greg Maxwell and "Wladimir Van Der Laan" (the current primary controller of the Core repo) into the bitcoin core project.
  5. Gavin Andersen got ejected from project (reasons unknown) and Mike Hearn quit project.
  6. Bitcoin Core project now controlled by Greg Maxwell and "Wladimir Van Der Laan/
  7. A random group of developers united and improved the code.
  8. ONE OF THE DECISIONS OF RANDOM INITIAL GROUP WAS TO MAKE 1 MB BLOCKSIZE???
  9. the random group of developers distributed the code to a larger group of developers , {the initial miners}
  10. initial miners exchanged, coins with themselves, gamers, other highly computer literate people.
  11. random semi-knowledgeable people here about bitcoin and instantly dismiss as magic internet money {I am in this group}
  12. Bitcoin use rises because of the "Dark Net", increase in usage leads to increase in value.
  13. Media starts reporting; value increasing and big silk road shut down; more people start buying because they heard of it.
  14. Regular schmo looks at the growth chart and moves 10% of assets into bitcoin (because why not) {I am in this group}.
  15. Transaction fees sky rocket because of more demand then group from step 7 had planned for.
The schism occurs
Questions:
{ WHY THE FORK, WHY NOT JUST INCREASE BIT SIZE?}:
{ WAS THE 1MB BLOCKSIZE A PART OF SATOSHI'S ORIGINAL WHITE PAPER?}
submitted by business2690 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]

My draft for a new /r/btc FAQ explaining the split from /r/Bitcoin to new users

If /btc is going to actually compete with /Bitcoin, it needs to be just as friendly and informative to new users, especially given its position as the “non default” or “breakaway” sub. The current /btc sticky saying "Welcome to the Wiki" doesn't even have any content in it and I feel this is a bit of a wasted opportunity to create an informative resource that new users will see by default and everyone else can link to instead of retyping things over and over about the history and difference between the subs.
Here's what I've written as a starting point. I've done my best to keep it as concise and relevant as possible but in all honesty it is a complicated issue and a short but effective explanation is basically impossible. I hope the community can expand/improve on it further.
Quick bit about me
I got into Bitcoin in October 2013, when /Bitcoin had around 40k subscribers if I remember correctly, so by now I've actually personally experienced a large portion of Bitcoin's history - including the events preceding and since the creation of this sub. I have been an active and popular poster on /Bitcoin for almost all of that time, until the split and my subsequent banning. With the recent censorship fiasco, I'm finding I have to reiterate the same points over and over again to explain to newer users what happened with the /Bitcoin vs /btc split, questions about hard forks, what is likely to happen in the future and so on. So I put a couple of hours into writing this post to save myself the trouble in future.

/btc FAQ - Historical split from /Bitcoin megathread - v0.1

There is a TL:DR; at the bottom, but it is exactly that. If you skip straight to the TL:DR; then don’t expect sympathy when you post questions that have already been covered in the lengthy and detailed main post.

New to Bitcoin?

I am totally new to Bitcoin. What is it? How does it work? Can/should I mine any? Where can I buy some? How do I get more information?
All of these questions are actually really well covered in the /Bitcoin FAQ. Check it out in a new tab here. Once you've got a bit of a handle on the technology as a whole, come back here for the rest of the story.

History: /btc vs /Bitcoin

What's the difference between /btc and /Bitcoin? What happened to create two such strongly opposed communities? Why can't I discuss /btc in /Bitcoin?
Historically, the /Bitcoin subreddit was the largest and most active forum for discussing Bitcoin. As Bitcoin grew close to a cap in the number of transactions it could process, known as the 1MB block size limit, the community had differing opinions on the best way to proceed. Note that this upcoming issue was anticipated well ahead of time, with Satoshi's chosen successor to lead the project Gavin Andresen posting about it in mid 2015. Originally, there was quite a broad spread of opinions - some people favoured raising the blocksize to various extents, some people favoured implementing a variety of second layer solutions to Bitcoin, probably most people thought both could be a good idea in one form or another.
This topic was unbelievably popular at the time, taking up almost every spot on the front page of /Bitcoin for weeks on end.
Unfortunately, the head moderator of /Bitcoin - theymos - felt strongly enough about the issue to use his influence to manipulate the debate. His support was for the proposal of existing software (called Bitcoin Core) NOT to raise the blocksize limit past 1MB and instead rely totally on second layer solutions - especially one called Segregated Witness (or SegWit). With some incredibly convoluted logic, he decided that any different implementations of Bitcoin that could potentially raise the limit were effectively equivalent to separate cryptocurrencies like Litecoin or Ethereum and thus the block size limit or implement other scaling solutions were off-topic and ban-worthy. At the time the most popular alternative was called Bitcoin XT and was supported by experienced developers Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, who have since both left Bitcoin Core development in frustration at their marginalisation. Theymos claimed that for Bitcoin XT or any other software implementation to be relevant to /Bitcoin required "consensus", which was never well defined, despite it being seemingly impossible for everyone to agree on the merits of a new project if no one was allowed to discuss it in the first place. Anyone who didn't toe the line of his vaguely defined moderation policy was temporarily or permanently banned. There was also manipulation of the community using the following tactics - which can still be seen today:
This created enormous uproar among users, as even many of those in favour of Bitcoin Core thought it was authoritarian to actively suppress this crucial debate. theymos would receive hundreds of downvotes whenever he posted: for example here where he gets -749 for threatening to ban prominent Bitcoin business Coinbase from the subreddit.
In an extraordinary turn of events, Theymos posted a thread which received only 26% upvotes in a sample size of thousands announcing that he did not care if even 90% of users disagreed with his policy, he would not change his opinion or his moderation policy to facilitate the discussion the community wanted to have. His suggested alternative was instead for those users, however many there were, to leave.
Here are Theymos' exact words, as he describes how he intends to continue moderating Bitcoin according to his own personal rules rather than the demands of the vast majority of users, who according to him clearly don't have any "real arguments" or "any brains".
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin , and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
/btc was therefore born in an environment not of voluntary departure but of forced exile.
This forced migration caused two very unfortunate occurrences:
  1. It polarised the debate around Bitcoin scaling. Previously, there was a lot of civil discussion about compromise and people with suggestions from all along the spectrum were working to find the best solution. That was no longer possible when a moderation policy would actively suppress anyone with opinions too different from Theymos. Instead it forced everyone into a "with us or against us" situation, which is why the /btc subreddit has been pushed so far in favour of the idea of a network hard fork (discussed below).
  2. It has distracted Bitcoin from its mission of becoming a useful, global, neutral currency into a war of information. New users often find /Bitcoin and assume it to be the authoritative source of information, only to later discover that a lot of important information or debate has been invisibly removed from their view.
Since then, like any entrenched conflict, things have degenerated somewhat on both sides to name calling and strawman arguments. However, /btc remains committed to permitting free and open debate on all topics and allowing user downvotes to manage any "trolling" (as /Bitcoin used to) instead of automatic shadow-banning or heavy-handed moderator comment deletion (as /Bitcoin does now). Many users in /Bitcoin deny that censorship exists at all (it is difficult to see when anyone pointing out the censorship has their comment automatically hidden by the automoderator) or justify it as necessary removal of "trolls", which at this point now includes thousands upon thousands of current and often long-standing Bitcoin users and community members.
Ongoing censorship is still rampant, partially documented in this post by John Blocke
For another detailed account of this historical sequence of events, see singularity87 s posts here and here.
/btc has a public moderator log as demonstration of its commitment to transparency and the limited use of moderation. /Bitcoin does not.
Why is so much of the discussion in /btc about the censorship in /Bitcoin? Isn't a better solution to create a better community rather than constantly complaining?
There are two answers to this question.
  1. Over time, as /btc grows, conversation will gradually start to incorporate more information about the Bitcoin ecosystem, technology, price etc. Users are encouraged to aid this process by submitting links to relevant articles and up/downvoting on the /new and /rising tab as appropriate. However, /btc was founded effectively as a refuge for confused and angry users banned from /Bitcoin and it still needs to serve that function so at least some discussion of the censorship will probably always persist (unless there is a sudden change of moderation policy in /Bitcoin).
  2. The single largest issue in Bitcoin right now is the current cap on the number of transactions the network can process, known as the blocksize limit. Due to the censorship in /Bitcoin, open debate of the merits of different methods of addressing this problem is impossible. As a result, the censorship of /Bitcoin (historically the most active and important Bitcoin community forum) has become by proxy the single most important topic in Bitcoin, since only by returning to open discussion would there be any hope of reaching agreement on the solution to the block size limit itself. As a topic of such central importance, there is naturally going to be a lot of threads about this until a solution is found. This is simply how Bitcoin works, that at any one time there is one key issue under discussion for lengthy periods of time (previous examples of community "hot topics" include the demise of the original Bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, the rise to a 51% majority hash rate of mining pool GHash.io and the supposed "unveiling" of Bitcoin's anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto).

Bitcoin Network Hard Forks

What is a hard fork? What happens if Bitcoin hard forks?
A network hard fork is when a new block of transactions is published under a new set of rules that only some of the network will accept. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain history of transactions to two separate blockchains of the current state of the network. With any luck, the economic incentive for all users to converge quickly brings everyone together on one side of the fork, but this is not guaranteed especially since there is not a lot of historical precedent for such an event.
A hard fork is necessary to raise the block size limit above its 1MB cap.
Why is /btc generally in favour of a hard fork and /Bitcoin generally against?
According to a lot of users on /Bitcoin - a hard fork can be characterised as an “attack” on the network. The confusion and bad press surrounding a hard fork would likely damage Bitcoin’s price and/or reputation (especially in the short term). They point to the ongoing turmoil with Ethereum as an example of the dangers of a hard fork. Most of /Bitcoin sees the stance of /btc as actively reckless, that pushing for a hard fork creates the following problems:
According to a lot of users on /btc - a hard fork is necessary despite these risks. Most of /btc sees the stance of /Bitcoin as passively reckless, that continuing to limit Bitcoin’s blocksize while remaining inactive creates the following problems:
Bitcoiners are encouraged to examine all of the information and reach their own conclusion. However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is an open-source project founded on the ideal of free market competition (between any/all software projects, currencies, monetary policies, miners, ideas etc.). In one sense, /btc vs /Bitcoin is just another extension of this, although Bitcoiners are also encouraged to keep abreast of the top posts and links on both subreddits. Only those afraid of the truth need to cut off opposing information.
What do Bitcoin developers, businesses, users, miners, nodes etc. think?
Developers
There are developers on both sides of the debate, although it is a common argument in /Bitcoin to claim that the majority supports Bitcoin Core. This is true in the sense that Bitcoin Core is the current default and has 421 listed code contributors but misleading because not only are many of those contributors authors of a single tiny change and nothing else but also many major figures like Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik have left the project while still being counted as historical contributors.
Businesses including exchanges etc.
A definite vote of confidence is not available from the vast majority of Bitcoin businesses, and wouldn't be binding in any case. The smart decision for most businesses is to support both chains in the event of a fork until the network resolves the issue (which may only be a day or two).
Users
Exact user sentiment is impossible to determine, especially given the censorship on /Bitcoin.
Miners and Nodes
Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
What do I do if the network hard forks?* Do we end up with two Bitcoins?
Firstly, in the event of a hard fork there is no need to panic. All Bitcoins are copied to both chains in the case of a split, so any Bitcoins you have are safe. HOWEVER, in the event of a fork there will be some period of confusion where it is important to be very careful about how/why you spend your Bitcoins. Hopefully (and most likely) this would not last long - everyone in Bitcoin is motivated to converge into agreement for everyone's benefit as soon as possible - but it's impossible to say for sure.
There isn't a lot of historical data about cryptocurrency hard forks, but one example is alternative cryptocurrency Ethereum that forked into two coins after the events of the DAO and currently exists as two separate chains, ETH (Ethereum) and ETC (Ethereum Classic).
The Ethereum fork is not a good analogy for Bitcoin because its network difficulty target adjusts every single block, so a massive drop in hash rate does not significantly impede its functioning. Bitcoin’s difficult target adjusts only every 2100 blocks - which under usual circumstances takes two weeks but in the event of a hard fork could be a month or more for the smaller chain. It is almost inconceivable that a minority of miners would willingly spend millions of dollars over a month or more purely on principle to maintain a chain that was less secure and processed transactions far slower than the majority chain - even assuming the Bitcoins on this handicapped chain didn't suffer a market crash to close to worthless.
Secondly, a hard fork is less likely to be a traumatic event than it is often portrayed in /Bitcoin:

What Happens Now

How do I check on the current status of opinion?
Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
Users are also welcome to engage in anecdotal speculation about community opinion based on their impression of the commentary and activity in /btc and /Bitcoin.
Haven't past attempts to raise the blocksize failed?
There is no time limit or statute of limitations on the number of attempts the community can make to increase the block size and scale Bitcoin. Almost any innovation in the history of mankind required several attempts to get working and this is no different.
The initial attempt called Bitcoin XT never got enough support for a fork because key developer Mike Hearn left out of frustration at trying to talk around all the censorship and community blockading.
The second major attempt called Bitcoin Classic gained massive community momentum until it was suddenly halted by the drastic implementation of censorship by Theymos described above.
The most popular attempt at the moment is called Bitcoin Unlimited.
/btc is neutral and welcoming to any and all projects that want to find a solution to scaling Bitcoin - either on-or off-chain. However, many users are suspicious of Bitcoin Core's approach that involves only SegWit, developed by a private corporation called Blockstream and that has already broken its previous promises in a document known as the Hong Kong Agreement to give the network a block size limit raise client along with Segregated Witness (only the latter was delivered) .
What if the stalemate is irreconcilable and nothing ever happens?
Increasing transaction fees and confirmation times are constantly increasing the pressure to find a scaling solution - leading some to believe that further adoption of Bitcoin Unlimited or a successor scaling client will eventually occur. Bitcoin Core's proposed addition of SegWit is struggling to gain significant support and as it is already the default client (and not censored in /Bitcoin) it is unlikely to suddenly grow any further.
If the stalemate is truly irreconcilable, eventually users frustrated by the cost, time and difficulty of Bitcoin will begin migrating to alternative cryptocurrencies. This is obviously not a desirable outcome for long standing Bitcoin supporters and holders, but cannot be ignored as the inevitable free market resort if Bitcoin remains deadlocked for long enough.

TL:DR;

I don’t know anything about Bitcoin. Help me?
What’s the /btc vs /Bitcoin story?
  • Bitcoin is at its transaction capacity and needs to scale to onboard more users
  • The community was discussing different ways to do this until the biased head moderator of /Bitcoin Theymos got involved
  • Theymos, started an authoritarian censorship rampage which culminated in telling 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. /btc is where they went. Here is the thread where it all started. Note the 26% upvoted on the original post, the hundreds of upvotes of community outcry in the comments and the graveyard of [removed] posts further down the chain. Highly recommended reading in its entirety.
  • To this day, /Bitcoin bans all discussion of alternative scaling proposals and /btc
  • Bitcoin is about freedom, and can’t function effectively with either an artificially restricted transaction cap or a main community forum that is so heavily manipulated. This subreddit is the search for solutions to both problems as well as general Bitcoin discussion.
What’s the deal with hard forks?
  • No TL:DR; possible, read the whole post.
What happens now?
  • Node Support Information
  • Miner Support Information
  • Debate continues in /btc, and generally doesn't continue in /Bitcoin - although posts referencing /btc or Bitcoin Unlimited regularly sneak past the moderators because it is such a crucial topic
  • Eventually one side or the other breaks, enough miners/nodes/users get on one side and Bitcoin starts scaling. This may or may not involve a hard fork.
  • If not, fees and average confirmation times continue to rise until users migrate en masse to an altcoin. This is not an imminent danger, as can be seen by the BTC marketcap dominance at its historical levels of 80+% but could change at any time
submitted by Shibinator to btc [link] [comments]

Why is Peter Todd wrecking Zeroconf security? Because he is being paid by Big Bitcoin Business.

At the Amsterdam Bitcoin Conference I spent time following Peter and his little circle of friends and business partners. I'm new to Bitcoin so it took me until now to put two and two together and understand what was really going on, but hear me out. Peter spent a lot of time talking to Lawrence Nahum who is the guy behind GreenAddress. On the first or second day they went out to dinner after the days talks were done and went out to a nice little open-air restaurant with a bunch of people from Mastercoin. I sat at a table behind them and could hear their discussions, which including GreenAdddress's transaction confirmation guarantees, and also, an agreement for Peter to do consulting work for GreenAddress. What really stood out to me was the offer to help "shape the Bitcoin ecosystem" in ways beneficial to them. Later in the conference I also overheard a similar deal between Peter and someone, I didn't catch their name, in Coinbase branded apparel. And of course as everyone knows CoinKite hired Peter to be their "Chief Naysayer" during that conference too.
What's in common with all these companies? They're all in the dangerous business of holding other peoples' Bitcoins and GreenAddress and Coinbase both offer for-profit and centralized solutions to guarantee unconfirmed transactions. I'm sure CoinKite will be doing that soon too.
It's obvious why Peter is spending all that time and energy spreading FUD about how insecure unconfirmed transactions are. GreenAddress has been spreading their own FUD. Peter has even been trying to bribe miners to switch to his so called "replace-by-fee", which is really just an attack on secure zeroconf transactions, saying some un-named "site" paid him too. Who might that be? GreenAddress, Coinbase, CoinKite? It's not hard to figure out.
Peter sure seems quite happy to attack and hold back Bitcoin whenever it suits him for the sake of his Big Bitcoin Business contracts. It's not just unconfirmed transactions either. He's been shilling for AppCoins which dump garbage into the blockchain for the sake of pump-and-dump schemes like Mastercoin and Counterparty. (quite the about face from his supposed anti-blockchain bloat positions before) Or look at his weirdly passionate opposition to a simple feature, getutxos, that's needed for Mike Hearn's decentralized fundraising platform Lighthouse. Where's that passion coming from? The heart? Or his salary from Mastercoin, Counterparty and Colored Coins? I'm sure Mastercoin wants the next Maidsafe to happen on their platform, run by and for the benefit of Mastercoin, not Hearn's truly decentralized alternative.
I agree with Peter that GHash.IO is a possible threat to Bitcoin, but what solution does he have? Getting rid of pools. His buddies at the totally discredited Hacking Distributed (remember selfish mining? yeah those guys) run with this FUD, trying to scare the Bitcoin community into making changes to get rid of pools. Sounds like a good idea right? But then I looked further into it and found out he had just been hanging out at CloudHashing. What does banning pools do to the little guy mining decentralized? It puts them out of business because they'll never find a block that's what. Just perfect for CloudHashing's "send us money and we'll run the miners" business model and also GHash.IO's.
Peter likes to talk the big talk about decentralization, but all I am seeing here is paid shilling for the benefit of Big Bitcoin Business.
submitted by alicebtcmayes 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]

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]

Will Bitcoin Futures Ruin Bitcoin? Ardor Pumpin, Byteball Jumpin, Bitcoin Dumpin Steering Clear of Bitcoin Bitcoin, Blockchain - What's the Buzz? (G.Greenspan, S.Levene, O.Acker, M.Bishop)  DLD16 Bitcoin Fundamentals: Potential Implications On Price

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 ... A Bitcoin sign can be seen on display at a bar in central Sydney, Australia, September 29, 2015. REUTERS/David Gray [] . LONDON BY JEMIMA KELLY. 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 holdings because it had “failed”. By Jemima Kelly LONDON (Reuters) - 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 holdings because it had "failed". Along with Gavin Andresen, 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 holdings because it had "failed". Along with Gavin Andresen, who was chosen by bitcoin's elusive 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 ...

[index] [10613] [45938] [6375] [40486] [10673] [41517] [5584] [12949] [13158] [13586]

Will Bitcoin Futures Ruin Bitcoin?

One of the most common objections I hear is that Futures and Derivatives will ruin bitcoin Most are referring to Bitcoin's price being suppressed through man... BTC Tipjar 12EAXwhbT6JaC2DvGY875SWFMtrzJi8vF1 Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/CarpeNoctom Referral Link 1broker - https://1broker.com/?r=2529 Tweet... Bitcoin Documentary Crypto Currencies Bitcoins ... Think Wealthy with Mike Adams 710,373 views. 41:34. FED Printing Billions - Is This Actually GOOD for Bitcoin? - Duration: 7:16. Crypto Daily ... Convergence of AI and Blockchain Technology Hosted by Lawrence Lundy-Bryan, Head of Research, Outlier Ventures Mike Hearn, Core Platform Engineer, R3; Bitcoin Core Developer Joshua Gans, Professor ... Mike Hearn's move from Bitcoin to Banks - Stacy Herbert, Max Keiser & Simon Dixon discuss - Duration: 25 minutes. BnkToTheFuture.com . 4,754 views; 4 years ago; 3:38. Simon Dixon discusses Banks ...

#