Andresen on BitCoin and Virtual Currency - Econlib

You can call you a Bitcoiner if you know/can explain these terms...

03/Jan/2009
10 Minutes
10,000 BTC Pizza
2016 Blocks
21 Million
210,000 Blocks
51% Attack
Address
Altcoin
Antonopoulos
Asic
Asic Boost
Base58
Batching
Bech32
Bit
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)
Bitcoin SV
Bitmain
Block
Block height
Block reward
Blockchain
Blockexplorer
Bloom Filter
Brain Wallet
Buidl
Change Address
Child pays for parent (CPFP)
Coinbase (not the exchange)
CoinJoin
Coinmarketcap (CMC)
Colored Coin
Confirmation
Consensus
Custodial Wallet
Craig Wright
David Kleinman
Difficulty
Difficulty adjustment
Difficulty Target
Dogecoin
Dorian Nakamoto
Double spend
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)
Ethereum
Faketoshi
Fork
Full Node
Gavin Andresen
Genesis Block
Getting goxed
Halving
Hard Fork
Hardware Wallet
Hash
Hashing
Hierarchical Deterministic (HD) Wallet
Hodl
Hot Wallet
Initial Coin Offering (ICO)
Initial Exchange Offering (IEO)
Ledger
Light Node
Lightning
Litecoin
Locktime
Mainnet
Malleability
Master Private Key
Master Public Key
Master Seed
mBTC
Mempool
Merkle Tree
Mining
Mining Farm
Mining Pool
Mixing
MtGox
Multisig
Nonce
Not your keys,...
Opcode
Orphan block
P2PKH
P2SH
Paper Wallet
Peers
Pieter Wuille
Premining
Private key
Proof of Stake (PoS)
Proof of Work (PoW)
Pruning
Public key
Pump'n'Dump
Replace by Fee (RBF)
Ripemd160
Roger Ver
sat
Satoshi Nakamoto
Schnorr Signatures
Script
Segregated Witness (Segwit)
Sha256
Shitcoin
Sidechain
Signature
Signing
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV)
Smart Contract
Soft Fork
Stratum
Syncing
Testnet
Transaction
Transaction Fees
TransactionId (Txid)
Trezor
User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)
Utxo
Wallet Import Format (WIF)
Watch-Only Address
Whitepaper
List obviously not complete. Suggestions appreciated.
Refs:
https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-glossary https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgo7FCCPuylVk4luP3JAgVw https://www.youtube.com/useaantonop
submitted by PolaT1x to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.

Centrally planned blocksize is not a desirable feature - it's an insidious bug which is slowly and quietly suppressing Bitcoin's adoption and price and market cap.
And SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" hack isn't just a needless kludge (which Core/Blockstream/AXA are selfishly trying to quietly slip into Bitcoin via a dangerous and messy soft fork - because they're deathly afraid of hard fork, knowing that most people would vote against their shitty code if they ever had the balls to put it up for an explicit, opt-in vote).
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember:
You Do The Math, and follow the money, and figure out why Bitcoin has been slowly failing to prosper ever since AXA started bribing Core devs to cripple our code with their centrally planned blocksize and now their "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit poison-pill.
Smart, honest devs fix bugs. Fiat-fueled AXA-funded Core/Blockstream devs add bugs - and then turn around and try to lie to our face and claim their bugs are somehow "features"
Recently, people discovered bugs in other Bitcoin implementations - memory leaks in BU's software, "phone home" code in AntMiner's firmware.
And the devs involved immediately took public responsibility, and fixed these bugs.
Meanwhile...
So the difference is: BU's and AntMiner's devs possess enough social and economic intelligence to fix bugs in their code immediately when the community finds them.
Meanwhile, most people in the community have been in an absolute uproar for years now against AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize and their deadly Anyone-Can-Spend hack/kludge/poison-pill.
Of course, the home-schooled fiat-fattened sociopath Blockstream CTO One-Meg Greg u/nullc would probably just dismiss all these Bitcoin users as the "shreaking" [sic] masses.
Narcissistic sociopaths like AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CTO Adam and their drooling delusional attack dog Luke-Jr (another person who was home-schooled - which may help explain why he's also such a tone-deaf anti-market sociopath) are just too stupid and arrogant to have the humility and the shame to shut the fuck up and listen to the users when everyone has been pointing out these massive lethal bugs in Core's shitty code.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr, and Theymos are the most damaging people in Bitcoin
These are the four main people who are (consciously or unconsciously) attempting to sabotage Bitcoin:
These toxic idiots are too stupid and shameless and sheltered - and too anti-social and anti-market - to even begin to recognize the lethal bugs they have been trying to introduce into Bitcoin's specification and our community.
Users decide on specifications. Devs merely provide implementations.
Guys like Greg think that they're important because they can do implemenation-level stuff (like avoiding memory leaks in C++ code).
But they are total failures when it comes to specification-level stuff (ie, they are incapable of figuring out how to "grow" a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market by maximally leveraging available technology).
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos apparently lack the social and economic awareness and human decency to feel any guilt or shame for the massive damage they are attempting to inflict on Bitcoin - and on the world.
Their ignorance is no excuse
Any dev who is ignorant enough to attempt to propose adding such insidious bugs to Bitcoin needs to be rejected by the Bitcoin community - no matter how many years they keep on loudly insisting on trying to sabotage Bitcoin like this.
The toxic influence and delusional lies of AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are directly to blame for the slow-motion disaster happening in Bitcoin right now - where Bitcoin's market cap has continued to fall from 100% towards 60% - and is continuing to drop.
When bitcoin drops below 50%, most of the capital will be in altcoins. All they had to do was increase the block size to 2mb as they promised. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68219y/when_bitcoin_drops_below_50_most_of_the_capital/
u/FormerlyEarlyAdopter : "I predict one thing. The moment Bitcoin hard-forks away from Core clowns, all the shit-coins out there will have a major sell-off." ... u/awemany : "Yes, I expect exactly the same. The Bitcoin dominance index will jump above 95% again."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yfcsw/uformerlyearlyadopter_i_predict_one_thing_the/
Market volume (ie, blocksize) should be decided by the market - not based on some arbitrary number that some ignorant dev pulled out of their ass
For any healthy cryptocurrency, market price and market capitalization and market volume (a/k/a "blocksize") are determined by the market - not by any dev team, not by central bankers from AXA, not by economically ignorant devs like Adam and Greg (or that other useless idiot - Core "Lead Maintainer" Wladimir van der Laan), not by some drooling pathological delusional authoritarian freak like Luke-Jr, and not by some petty tyrant and internet squatter and communmity-destroyer like Theymos.
The only way that Bitcoin can survive and prosper is if we, as a community, denounce and reject these pathological "centralized blocksize" control freaks like Adam and Greg and Luke and Theymos who are trying to use tricks like fiat and censorship and lies (in collusion with their army of trolls organized and unleashed by the Dragons Den) to impose their ignorance and insanity on our currency.
These losers might be too ignorant and anti-social to even begin to understand the fact that they are attempting to sabotage Bitcoin.
But their ignorance is no excuse. And Bitcoin is getting ready to move on and abandon these losers.
There are many devs who are much better than Greg, Adam and Luke-Jr
A memory leak is an implementation error, and a centrally planned blocksize is a specification error - and both types of errors will be avoided and removed by smart devs who listen to the community.
There are plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in C++ - plus plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in other languages as well, such as:
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos are being exposed as miserable failures
AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, their drooling attack dog Luke-Jr and their censor Theymos (and all the idiot small-blockheads, trolls, and shills who swallow the propaganda and lies cooked up in the Dragons Den) are being exposed more and more every day as miserable failures.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos had the arrogance and the hubris to want to be "trusted" as "leaders".
But Bitcoin is the world's first cryptocurrency - so it doesn't need trust, and it doesn't need leaders. It is decentralized and trustless.
C++ devs should not be deciding Bitcoin's volume. The market should decide.
It's not suprising that a guy like "One-Meg Greg" who adopts a nick like u/nullc (because he spends most of his life worrying about low-level details like how to avoid null pointer errors in C++ while the second-most-powerful fiat finance corporation in the world AXA is throwing tens of millions of dollars of fiat at his company to reward him for being a "useful idiot") has turned to be not very good at seeing the "big picture" of Bitcoin economics.
So it also comes as no suprise that Greg Maxwell - who wanted to be the "leader" of Bitcoin - has turned out to be one of most harmful people in Bitcoin when it comes to things like growing a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market and economy.
All the innovation and growth and discussion in cryptocurrencies is happening everywhere else - not at AXA-funded Blockstream and r\bitcoin (and the recently discovered Dragons Den, where they plan their destructive social engineering campaigns).
Those are the censored centralized cesspools financed by central bankers and overrun by loser devs and the mindless trolls who follow them - and supported by inefficient miners who want to cripple Bitcoin with centrally planned blocksize (and dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit).
Bitcoin is moving on to bigger blocks and much higher prices - leaving AXA-funded Blockstream's crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust
Let them stagnate in their crippled shit-coin with its centrally planned, artificial, arbitrary 1MB 1.7MB blocksize, and SegWit's Anyone-Can-Spend hack kludge poison-pill.
Bitcoin is moving on without these tyrants and liars and losers and sociopaths - and we're going to leave their crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust.
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y9qtg/coreblockstream_are_now_in_the_k%C3%BCblerross/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Did you know that LISK uses Schnorr signature-based Ed25519 scheme which is more secure, much faster, more scalable than secp256k1 which is used by Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stratis

Schnorr signatures have been praised by Bitcoin developers for a while Adam Back admitted it was more secure
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=511074.msg5727641#msg5727641
And it is much faster (scalable for verifying hundred thousands of transactions per second)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103172.0
DJB and friends claim that with their ed25519 curve (the "ed" is for Edwards) and careful implementation they can do batch verification of 70,000+ signatures per second on a cheap quad-core Intel Westmere chip, which is now several generations old. Given advances in CPUs over time, it seems likely that in the very near future the cited software will be capable of verifying many hundreds of thousands of signatures per second even if you keep the core count constant. But core counts are not constant - it seems likely that in 10 years or so 24-32 core chips will be standard even on consumer desktops. At that point a million signatures per second or more doesn't sound unreasonable.
Gavin Andresen, the former Bitcoin Chief Scientist want to support it in Bitcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2jw5pm/im_gavin_andresen_chief_scientist_at_the_bitcoin/clfp3xj/
Bitcoin developers discussed to include it https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/212
However, it is still in wishlist https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork_wishlist
Ed25519 is used in Tahoe-FS, one of most respected crypto project https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/2014/000069.html
LISK is IoT friendly
The good feature of Schnorr signature is that by design it does not require lot of computations on the signer side. Therefore, you can use it even on a computationally weak platform (think of a smart card or RFID), or on a platform with no hardware support for multiple precision arithmetic.
Advantages of Schnorr signatures
According to David Harding, Schnorr signatures can bring many benefits
Smaller multisig transactions
Slightly smaller for all transactions
Plausible deniability for multisig
Plausible deniability of authorized parties using a third-party organizer (which doesn't need to be trusted with private keys), it's possible to prevent signers from knowing whether their private key is part of the set of signing keys.
Theoretical better security properties: Also, the ed25519 page linked above describes several ways it is resistant to side-channel attacks, which can allow hardware wallets to operate safely in less secure environments.
Faster signature verification: it likely takes fewer CPU cycles to verify an ed25519 Schnorr signature than a secp256k1 ECDSA signature.
Multi-crypto multisig: with two (slightly) different cryptosystems to choose from, high-security users can create 2-of-2 multisig pubkey scripts that require both ECDSA and Schnorr signatures, so their bitcoins can't be stolen if only one cryptosystem is broken.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/34288/what-are-the-implications-of-schnorr-signatures
Scalable multisig transactions
The magic of Schnorr signatures is most evident in their ability to aggregate signatures from multiple inputs into a single one to be validated for every individual transactions. The scaling implications of this are obvious: aggregation allows for non-trivial savings in terms of transmission, validation & storage for every peer on the network. The chart below illustrates the historical impact a switch to Schnorr signatures would have had in terms of space savings on the blockchain. (Alex B.) Infamous malleability is non-issue in LISK Provably no inherent signature malleability, while ECDSA has a known malleability, and lacks a proof that no other forms exist. Note that Witness Segregation already makes signature malleability not result in transaction malleability, however. https://www.elementsproject.org/elements/schnorr-signatures/
Bitcoin has malleability bugs
submitted by Corinne1992 to CryptoCurrency [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]

Did you know that LISK uses Schnorr signature-based Ed25519 scheme which is more secure, much faster, more scalable than secp256k1 which is used by Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stratis

Schnorr signatures have been praised by Bitcoin developers for a while
Adam Back admitted it was more secure
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=511074.msg5727641#msg5727641
And it is much faster (scalable for verifying hundred thousands of transactions per second)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103172.0
DJB and friends claim that with their ed25519 curve (the "ed" is for Edwards) and careful implementation they can do batch verification of 70,000+ signatures per second on a cheap quad-core Intel Westmere chip, which is now several generations old. Given advances in CPUs over time, it seems likely that in the very near future the cited software will be capable of verifying many hundreds of thousands of signatures per second even if you keep the core count constant. But core counts are not constant - it seems likely that in 10 years or so 24-32 core chips will be standard even on consumer desktops. At that point a million signatures per second or more doesn't sound unreasonable.
Gavin Andresen, the former Bitcoin Chief Scientist want to support it in Bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2jw5pm/im_gavin_andresen_chief_scientist_at_the_bitcoin/clfp3xj/
Bitcoin developers discussed to include it https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/212
However, it is still in wishlist https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork_wishlist
Ed25519 is used in Tahoe-FS, one of most respected crypto project https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/2014/000069.html
LISK is IoT friendly
The good feature of Schnorr signature is that by design it does not require lot of computations on the signer side. Therefore, you can use it even on a computationally weak platform (think of a smart card or RFID), or on a platform with no hardware support for multiple precision arithmetic.
Advantages of Schnorr signatures
According to David Harding, Schnorr signatures can bring many benefits
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/34288/what-are-the-implications-of-schnorr-signatures
Scalable multisig transactions
The magic of Schnorr signatures is most evident in their ability to aggregate signatures from multiple inputs into a single one to be validated for every individual transactions. The scaling implications of this are obvious: aggregation allows for non-trivial savings in terms of transmission, validation & storage for every peer on the network. The chart below illustrates the historical impact a switch to Schnorr signatures would have had in terms of space savings on the blockchain. (Alex B.)
Infamous malleability is non-issue in LISK
Provably no inherent signature malleability, while ECDSA has a known malleability, and lacks a proof that no other forms exist. Note that Witness Segregation already makes signature malleability not result in transaction malleability, however. https://www.elementsproject.org/elements/schnorr-signatures/
Bitcoin has malleability bugs
submitted by pcdinh to Lisk [link] [comments]

I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took *longer* than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened *faster* than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.

Centralization is a double-edged sword.
So far, centralization (and intertia, and laziness, and caution) has been favoring Blockstream.
But if and when a congestion crisis comes, then the tide is gonna turn pretty quickly - and Blockstream's monopoly in terms of "code running on the network" is gonna evaporate quicker than anyone expected.
How will this happen?
Like this:
Bitcoin is going to go into a crisis - not just the current agonizing slow-motion swamp of centralized fascist governance, but a real-time honking red alert involving a clogged-up network, with people freaking out screaming from the rooftops that millions of dollars in transactions are in limbo due to some pointless fucked-up 1 MB "blocksize limit".
And at that point, people are going to get rid of the damn piece of broken cripple-code, immediately.
End of story.
Slow to crumble, fast to collapse
Up till now, the Bitcoin governance crisis has been like slowly sinking into a swamp of quicksand.
But once a real-time congestion crisis actually hits (and online forums become dominated by posts screaming "my transaction is stuck in limbo!!!"), then all the previous bullshit and bloviating from economic idiots about "fee markets" and "soft hard forks" or whatever other nonsense will be instantly forgotten.
And at that point, there will be only 2 things that can happen:
You don't need Blockstream - they need you
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch.
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
Eventually, we are going to remember what vote-with-your-CPU consensus looks like
Remember all those hours you wasted on reddit?
Remember all that time you wasted in some hidden downvoted sub-thread debating with some snarky little toxic troll who'd wandered over from a censored Milgram experiment forum full of brainwashed circlejerkers and foot-stomping fascists whose only adrenaline rush and power trip in life had evidently been when they would run around bloviating gibberish like "fee markets!" or "Austrian!" to the self-selected bunch of ignorant submissive sycophants who hadn't been banned from r\bitcoin yet?
Well, when the real crisis hits, all that trivial online drama isn't going to matter any more.
When the inevitable congestion crisis finally comes, it's only going to take a couple of mining pools plus a couple of exchanges to make a simple life-or-death business decision to un-install Blockstream's artificially crippled code and instead install code that has actually been upgraded to deal with the reality of mining and the marketplace - and then we're all going to see what actual vote-with-your-CPU consensus really looks like (instead of vote-with-your-sockpuppet pseudo-consensus on Reddit).
This upgraded code could be Classic, or Unlimited, or even a modded version Core - it doesn't really matter.
Code is code and money is money, and when push comes to shove, investors and miners aren't going to give a damn what some overpaid economic idiot from Blockstream said at some meeting in Hong Kong once, or what some fascist poisonous astroturfing shill-bot posted a million times on Reddit.
Things usually move slow in Bitcoin-land - except when they move fast
For an example of how fast the tide can turn, just look at a couple of major events from the past two days:
(1) Coinbase is suddenly saying that:
Of course the good devs are flocking to Ethereum now.
Any smart dev can see from a mile away that it would be suicide to try to contribute to Core/Blockstream - Blockstream don't want any new coders or new ideas, they are insular and insecure and they feel downright threatened by new coders with fresh ideas.
They've shown this over and over again, eg:
(2) AntPool is suddenly throwing down the gauntlet, saying they won't do SegWit unless and until they get a hard fork first.
AntPool represents a pretty big chunk of hashrate - so all it's gonna take is another big chunk of hashrate to make the same practical business decision as AntPool (to serve Bitcoin users, instead of serving Blockstream) - and boom! - Blockstream loses their stranglehold on the miners.
Devs don't like dicatorships
Blockstream is too jack-booted lock-step to ever attract any more new dev talent.
This is because good devs are very independent-minded: they can smell a dicatorial organization from a mile away, and so no good dev in their right mind (who might actually have some interesting new ideas that could help Bitcoin) would ever go near Blockstream and its toxic group-think culture.
And so Blockstream will just continue to stagnate under Gregory Maxwell's oppressive "leadership":
Blockstream has backed themselves into a corner
At this point, people are starting to realize that Blockstream is a led by desperate and incompetent dead-enders.
(There are some great coders over there such as Pieter Wuille - and Greg Maxwell is also a great Bitcoin coder, but he is toxic as a "leader".)
Blockstream can't do capacity planning, they can't do threat assessment, they can't innovate, they can't prioritize, and they can't communicate.
In the end, they're only destroying themselves - by censoring debate, and ostracizing existing innovators (eg, Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen) - and scaring away potential new innovators.
Remember, Blockstream != Bitcoin
It's important to remember that Blockstream cannot destroy Bitcoin - any more than Mt Gox could.
Once Blockstream is thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Bitcoin community and the media, as "the company that almost strangled the Bitcoin network by trying to force blocks to be smaller than the average web page" - it's gonna be time for honey-badger jokes all over again.
Blockstream's gargantuan conflicts-of-interest will be their downfall
Blockstream is funded by insurance giant AXA - a company whose CEO is the head of the friggin' Bilderberg Group. (He's scheduled to move from CEO of AXA to CEO of HSBC soon. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.)
AXA doesn't even want cryptocurrency to succeed anyways, because half of the 1 trillion dollars of so-called "assets" on their fraudulent balance sheet is actually nothing more than toxic debt-backed worthless derivatives garbage. (AXA has more derivatives than any other insurance company.)
In other words, AXA's balance sheet will be exposed as worthless and the company will become insolvent (just like Lehman Brothers and AIG did in 2008) once real money like Bitcoin actually becomes dominant in the world economy - which will "uber" and knock down the whole teetering $1.2 quadrillion derivatives casino.
Hmm... AIG... a giant insurance group whose alleged "assets" turned out to be just a worthless pile of toxic debt-backed derivatives on the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat, AIG who triggered the 2008 financial near-meltdown... Who does AIG remind me of... Oh yeah AXA... So let's put AXA in charge of paying for Bitcoin development! What could possibly go wrong?!?
Blockstream's owners HATE Bitcoin
Never forget:
This is the probably the most gigantic CONFLICT OF INTEREST in the history of economics. And it's something to think about, as we sit here wondering for years why Blockstream is not only failing to scale Bitcoin - but it's also actively trying to SABOTAGE anyone ELSE who tries to scale Bitcoin as well.
So, be patient - and optimistic
Viewed from one perspective, the fact that this blocksize battle has dragged on for years can be very depressing.
But, viewed from another perspective, the fact that it's still going on is positive - because, for example, nobody really dares to say anymore that "blocks should be 1 MB" - since repeated studies have shown that the current hardware and infrastructure could easily handle 3-4 MB blocks, and Core/Blockstream's own precious SegWit soft-fork is going to need 3-4 MB blocks anyways.
Plus, the only "strengths" that Blockstream had on its side actually turn out to be pretty weak upon closer scrutiny (money from investors like AXA who hate cryptocurrency, censorship from domain squatters who only know how to destroy communities, snark from sockpuppets who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag on uncensored forums).
In fact, if you were part of Blockstream, you'd be pretty demoralized that a rag-tag bunch of big-blocks supporters has been chipping away at you for the past few years, creating new forums, creating new coins, creating new products and services, exposing the economic ignorance of small-block dead-enders - and all the while, Blockstream hasn't been able to deliver on any of its so-called scaling roadmap.
If it hadn't been for a few historical accidents (cheap energy behind the Great Firewall of China, plus the other "linguistic" firewall that has prevented many people in the Chinese-speaking community from seeing how much of the community actually rejects Blockstream, plus the other accidental fact that bigger blocks involve generalizing Bitcoin, which mathematically happens to require a hard fork), then Blockstream would not have been able to control Bitcoin development as long as it has.
Yeah, they have done routine maintenance stuff and efficiency upgrades, like rewriting libsecp256k, which is great, and much appreciated - and Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork) - but the network also needs some simple, safe scaling.
And the network is going to get simple, safe scaling - whenever it decides that it really, really wants it.
And there's nothing that Blockstream can do to block that.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2015-11-07 to 2018-12-03 19:07 PDT

Period: 1122.63 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 177195
Rate (per day) 0.89 157.49
Unique Redditors 537 19498
Combined Score 606295 1044009

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 28637 points, 50 submissions: Egon_1
    1. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" (4810 points, 506 comments)
    2. WSJ: "[bitcoin core] fees have reached an average cost of about $30 per transaction. That makes bitcoin virtually unusable for all but very large transactions. The Bitcoin Cash crowd is just trying to offer a solution to that problem." (1305 points, 338 comments)
    3. Friendly reminder that the LiteCoin ($36) founder sold 100% of his coins as it ran up to $300 while wearing a HODL shirt for video interviews. (1192 points, 293 comments)
    4. Rick Falkvinge:"Fun fact: I am aware of a truckload of companies currently in the process of converting from Bitcoin Legacy to #Bitcoin Cash. I am aware of zero (0) companies going the other direction." (657 points, 226 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin.com wallet now displays "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core" balances. Should satisfy everyone, right? ;)" (627 points, 444 comments)
    6. GDAX: "We will open the BCH-BTC Order Book on Wednesday, January 17 at 9:00 am PST." (618 points, 112 comments)
    7. Stephen (BitPay CEO):"a typical #bitcoin transaction costs $1.80 now, >200k unconfirmed transactions, time for a hard fork to larger blocks ... 8mb please" (544 points, 113 comments)
    8. Erik Voorhees: "Changing Bitcoin's proof-of-work to prevent miners from mining is the most absurd and reckless thing I've heard in the scaling debate." (539 points, 171 comments)
    9. Erik Voorhees: "Fellow Bitcoiners, are you ever going to realize how problematic these fees are getting? Avg fees now over $40 per tx. A year ago avg fee was $4. A year prior, $0.40. Growing faster than price, and exponentially with usage. We just spent $4800 to move 15 BTC in one TX." (539 points, 147 comments)
    10. BitPay CEO: “If people can’t engage in commerce, it’s hard to imagine why they’d want to store their money in Bitcoin in the first place” (537 points, 133 comments)
  2. 26883 points, 56 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. I'm Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com and world's first investor in Bitcoin startups. AMA (978 points, 932 comments)
    2. The pro Bitcoin Cash video from CNBC made it to the very front page of Yahoo.com! (858 points, 189 comments)
    3. I (Roger Ver) will be doing an AMA on Monday Dec 18th starting at 10AM EST on /BTC because /Bitcoin is completely censored. (826 points, 412 comments)
    4. Reminder: Blockstream and Core got 100% of everything they asked for. (807 points, 332 comments)
    5. I'm giving away $100 each of BCH and BTC on live TV tomorrow by displaying the private key. Guess why? (738 points, 827 comments)
    6. How wrong were they? More than 2 years ago the CEO of Lightning Labs said LN would be ready in less than 6 months (695 points, 275 comments)
    7. To the Censorship loving tyrants in /Bitcoin, don't Say Bitcoin.com didn't warn you! "In the unlikely event that the 2MB block size increase portion of Segwit2x fails to activate, Bitcoin.com will immediately shift all company resources to supporting Bitcoin Cash exclusively." (672 points, 363 comments)
    8. Sign the Petition for Clemency for Ross Ulbricht, Serving Double Life for a Website (663 points, 227 comments)
    9. I just bet 1,000 BTC (~$4M USD) that Segwit 2X coin will have more value than Segwit 1x coin. (644 points, 398 comments)
    10. If you think consumers are going to throw away $100’s (and soon $1000’s) on transaction fees to open up a payment channel on the Lightning network, you are delusional. (599 points, 219 comments)
  3. 12737 points, 26 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Censored! Youtube removes Roger Ver's video on "The effects of Censorship and Propaganda upon Bitcoin" (1002 points, 296 comments)
    2. CNBC is waking up (886 points, 144 comments)
    3. Despite massing brigading from bitcoin and core, @Bitcoin twitter account has gained 50k subscribers since it came out in support of BCH last week. (627 points, 197 comments)
    4. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. (619 points, 113 comments)
    5. Bitfinex defines Bitcoin Cash as the coin that fulfills the original promise of p2p cash, a bitcoin upgrade that is ready to scale and sound money! #Winning (599 points, 164 comments)
    6. Wouldn't wanna be this shopper. (581 points, 124 comments)
    7. GDAX enabling EUBCH trading pair next week. #winning 🎆 (572 points, 66 comments)
    8. Thank to this community's effort, Forbes has corrected Kyle's Torpey's LN article to clarify LTC tx fees is much higher than BCH. Now let's ask for 1 more correction: Bitcoin cash is not Bcash. Links in comments. (508 points, 173 comments)
    9. Elizabeth Stark of Lightning labs calls out Blockstream on letting users tinker with LN that's neither safe nor ready for mainnet. (490 points, 266 comments)
    10. The $2000 tip for Bitcoin ABC dev shows we don't need blockstream to pay our developers, we can do community funding through tippr! (463 points, 131 comments)
  4. 12410 points, 23 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. /bitcoin is censoring the NIST report that says "Bitcoin Cash is the original blockchain" and Bitcoin Core is not. If you have to censor to get people to believe you, then you have lost. (855 points, 496 comments)
    2. Free_Ross on Twitter: "ALL charges of murder-for-hire vs. Ross are now dropped. After almost 5 years, gov't has moved to dismiss final MD indictment based on evidence from corrupt agent now in prison." (759 points, 211 comments)
    3. Someone hacked the account todu which was a mod here to point users to /bitcoin (732 points, 259 comments)
    4. Former /cryptocurrency mod: "I used to be a mod of cryptocurrency until they kicked me out. Now, that sub, is controlled all by mods with accounts less than 7 months old!" (724 points, 214 comments)
    5. Congrats: /btc has reached 150,000 subscribers! (696 points, 356 comments)
    6. Twitter continues to go downhill - flags @Bitcoin account as ‘temporarily restricted due to unusual activity’ (635 points, 216 comments)
    7. There is a huge edit war on Wikipedia where trolls like the user "Jtbobwaysf" are trying very hard to inject the word "bcash" into Bitcoin Cash pages and reverting/editing other pages that speak factually poorly on topics such as Lightning Network, Segwit, etc. (622 points, 148 comments)
    8. What /bitcoin mods desperately don't want you to see! (601 points, 104 comments)
    9. /btc is trending on reddit today, congrats everyone! (586 points, 18 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit (579 points, 334 comments)
  5. 11766 points, 16 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." (3417 points, 463 comments)
    2. Dear Reddit Admins: We need to talk about /Bitcoin (1342 points, 280 comments)
    3. Paid for this whisky with Bitcoin Cash! Ginza bar becomes third Tokyo retail establishment to accept BCC (747 points, 60 comments)
    4. Samson Mow says Bitcoin isn't for people earning less than $2 a day. With average transaction fees now at $27.20, is Bitcoin even for people earning less than $100 a day? (659 points, 160 comments)
    5. Protip: If you are new to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, you really should read the document that started it all, the Bitcoin whitepaper [PDF] (642 points, 69 comments)
    6. With the public spotlight on Reddit censorship, now would be the perfect time to let the rest of Reddit know about the censorship on /bitcoin (641 points, 121 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin in a nutshell (531 points, 68 comments)
    8. Three years ago today, Mike Hearn published an article explaining exactly what would happen when the 1MB blocksize limit was hit. He was right on all counts. (483 points, 168 comments)
    9. Shit, they're on to us (449 points, 65 comments)
    10. "Am I so out of touch?" (443 points, 164 comments)
  6. 9301 points, 2 submissions: censorship_notifier
    1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. (8585 points, 1166 comments)
    2. New anti-censorship bot for /bitcoin (716 points, 345 comments)
  7. 7980 points, 16 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. No Neo I'm trying to tell you ... (706 points, 77 comments)
    2. Blockstream is falling apart - Greg Maxwell resigns - Blockstream takes down team page in a hurry to reorg team - Adam Back must be worried (675 points, 492 comments)
    3. * Ripple is not mineable (it is a centralized private blockchain run by banks) (622 points, 254 comments)
    4. rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains (578 points, 188 comments)
    5. Blockstream investor emails leaked - shows Blockstream motivation to steal transaction fees from miners and pay to Liquid sidechain customers (539 points, 250 comments)
    6. Fixed - Bitcoin Cash moving money far better. SegWitCoin moving money with high fees and slow confirmation times! (532 points, 105 comments)
    7. Vitalik Buterin says what we've all been saying - CoinDesk is scammy and complicit bad actor in the cryptocurrency world and should be shunned (505 points, 59 comments)
    8. "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO (498 points, 143 comments)
    9. Coinbase comes through and does the correct thing and adds clarification on the upcoming Segwit2x Fork (454 points, 194 comments)
    10. Core trolls have hard decisions to make (437 points, 140 comments)
  8. 7772 points, 1 submission: PedanticPendant
    1. The idiocracy of bitcoin (7772 points, 750 comments)
  9. 7763 points, 13 submissions: jessquit
    1. You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction (1378 points, 386 comments)
    2. There never was a "scaling problem." The only problem is "people that don't want Bitcoin to scale." (772 points, 419 comments)
    3. Please stop saying "Increase the block size" (660 points, 449 comments)
    4. [PSA] If your Bitcoin are not ready-to-transact in a wallet whose keys you exclusively control, then you don't control your Bitcoin (622 points, 215 comments)
    5. Why us old-school Bitcoiners argue that Bitcoin Cash should be considered "the real Bitcoin" (587 points, 586 comments)
    6. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (541 points, 345 comments)
    7. Why large blocks: because one man's "coffee purchase transaction" is another man's monthly income (501 points, 104 comments)
    8. This sub is under major attack (494 points, 319 comments)
    9. There is a word for a "store of value" with no underlying utility, and that word is "collectible" (481 points, 169 comments)
    10. Ripple user comes to defend Ripple, gets hundreds of upvotes, but can't answer the most fundamental question: what prevents inflation? (459 points, 404 comments)
  10. 7400 points, 16 submissions: Windowly
    1. "If BCH hashpower > BTC, I'll start referring to it as just 'Bitcoin' :" ~ Gavin on twitter (778 points, 238 comments)
    2. You want to go grab a coffee?? (642 points, 413 comments)
    3. "I guess my idea of "freedom from corrupt banks" didn't include transaction fees that forced 99% of the world's population to keep using banks."~Erik Voorhees (603 points, 122 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin needs multiple clients and independent developer groups. There were 0-days in Microsoft Windows for two decades despite billions spent on development. Cut new teams some slack as they ramp up." ~Cornell Professor and Bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer (506 points, 91 comments)
    5. "With recent developments, I'm putting all available dev resources to retool my software for #Bitcoin Cash. I suspect I'm far from alone."~Rick Falkvinge (Pirate Party) (493 points, 134 comments)
    6. "We've tested Bitcoin Cash vs Lightning Network and... LN feels so unnecessary and over-complicated. Also, still more expensive than Bitcoin Cash fees - and that's not taking into account the $3 fees each way you open or close a $50 channel. Also two different balances? Confusing" ~ HandCash (461 points, 252 comments)
    7. That Awkward Moment. . . . (429 points, 129 comments)
    8. "There was an entire mall in 2013 to 2015 in Berlin that accepted Bitcoin. This stopped when fees rose. There was wide adoption once. Fees kill use"~Dr. Craig S. Wright (424 points, 150 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash finally released on Open Bazaar! (420 points, 36 comments)
    10. "Billion-dollar corporations take note: Bitcoin Cash is open for business! Just try to fill up our blocks, I dare you. There will be no "Fidelity Effect" with BCH. Unlike BTC, we want you to use the Blockchain. BCH never really hits a scale ceiling."~Dr. Peter Rizun (413 points, 177 comments)
  11. 6980 points, 1 submission: boomtnt46
    1. As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method (6980 points, 1178 comments)
  12. 6385 points, 9 submissions: rdar1999
    1. South Koreans sign petition (100k signatures) to reject ban proposal and 30k signatures asking to FIRE the Justice Minister and the Finance Minister for market manipulation. Crypto is winning!! (1863 points, 117 comments)
    2. BREAKING NEWS: South Korean Government confirms NO CRYPTO BAN. What they will do is to enforce regulations, anti money laundering task force, anti market manipulation, the usual stuff. (1085 points, 51 comments)
    3. Friendly reminder: Vitalik "I consider BCH a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name." (794 points, 181 comments)
    4. Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (562 points, 262 comments)
    5. GDAX: Bitcoin Cash Launch Retrospective -- trades were halted after 3 minutes because THE STASH DRIED OUT DUE TO AN AVALANCHE OF BUY ORDERS (485 points, 162 comments)
    6. While Jamie Dimon is shutting down your accounts, Russia’s largest State Bank is about to open cryptocurrency exchange In europe (439 points, 38 comments)
    7. Flippening: blockexplorer.com says: "We have made the decision to support the only bitcoin fork with a postive utility momentum, which is Bitcoin Cash.(...) We will not add future support for the Blockstream fork of bitcoin ("Bitcoin Legacy"), and will be deprecating it entirely " (428 points, 110 comments)
    8. National Institute of Standards and Technology confirm: "Bitcoin Core (BTC) is a fork and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the real Bitcoin" p.43 para 8.1.2 (372 points, 115 comments)
    9. TABGATE==> the astroturfing/hired shills scandal. Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls. Just read! (357 points, 271 comments)
  13. 6162 points, 7 submissions: normal_rc
    1. Legacy Bitcoin tries to buy a cup of coffee (2305 points, 499 comments)
    2. WARNING: Brutal scam. Guy buys a Ledger Nano wallet on Ebay, and it steals all his cryptocurrency ($34,000, which is his life's savings). (1479 points, 522 comments)
    3. How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC. (589 points, 220 comments)
    4. Cryptocurrency usually automatically downvotes any pro-BCH thread into oblivion. But I got my CoinText.io post to trend to #3 on their front page, by simply not saying "Bitcoin Cash". Proof that people would love BCH if they kept an open mind. (542 points, 202 comments)
    5. Tor Project can accept small donations again, thanks to Bitcoin Cash. (458 points, 35 comments)
    6. 100,000+ Merchants Start Accepting Bitcoin Cash. More than 100,000 BitPay merchants are now accepting Bitcoin Cash with the option seemingly automatically turned on for all of them. (416 points, 108 comments)
    7. Bitpay announcement: Electron Cash wallet now fully supports Bitpay BIP70 payment invoices for Bitcoin Cash. (373 points, 37 comments)
  14. 6023 points, 12 submissions: BitcoinIsTehFuture
    1. “Graphene” is a new Bitcoin block propagation technology that is 10x more efficient than Core’s “Compact Blocks”! Created by: Gavin Andresen, A. Pinar Ozisik, George Bissias, Amir Houmansadr, Brian Neil Levine. (717 points, 224 comments)
    2. Just so you guys know: Ethereum just had another successful hardfork network upgrade. Blockstream is wrong when they say you cannot hard fork to improve things. (655 points, 398 comments)
    3. Western Union vs. Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash (625 points, 102 comments)
    4. This was an orchestrated attack. (574 points, 373 comments)
    5. It's called "Bitcoin Cash". The term "Bcash" is a social attack run by bitcoin. Not joking. Here is the full explanation, with proof. (567 points, 310 comments)
    6. On a reply I made in bitcoin that had over 350 upvotes, I was first somehow blocked from being able to reply on bitcoin and then actually banned when I edited my comment to state that I was blocked from replying. (502 points, 99 comments)
    7. The /bitconnect subreddit just got set to private! Bitconnect experienced a 90% drop, from over $300 down to $26! The scam has gone belly up at last! (447 points, 168 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core Dev "Luke-jr" is asked why he is interested in Bitcoin. This is one of the main people in charge of Bitcoin right now. (405 points, 383 comments)
    9. I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (401 points, 166 comments)
    10. #NOTX (390 points, 56 comments)
  15. 5329 points, 1 submission: 11111101000
    1. Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase (5329 points, 1019 comments)
  16. 5147 points, 2 submissions: peptocurrency
    1. Guess who controls over half a billion Tethers across 3 exchanges—over 73% of USDT currently in circulation. (4748 points, 635 comments)
    2. Dear Bitcoin: You're right. BTC has been attacked. (399 points, 107 comments)
  17. 5098 points, 9 submissions: btcnewsupdates
    1. Starbucks CEO Wants Crypto. Considering All Currencies Except Bitcoin Core (BTC): "It is not a currency today nor will it be in the future” (820 points, 218 comments)
    2. Roger Ver: "Dear @reddit, [...] I'll pay you $100,000 USD if you simply appoint a moderator to /Bitcoin who supports free speech." (804 points, 424 comments)
    3. Hundreds of botted accounts mixed with some real ones simultaneously post "Bitcoin Cash is Trash" on twitter. Blockstream reaching sheer desperation status. (719 points, 281 comments)
    4. Overstock accepts Bitcoin Cash - BCH holders can now buy Home Goods, Bed & Bath Essentials, Jewellery & More! (591 points, 115 comments)
    5. ProtonMail asking for community assistance to enable Bitcoin Cash payments (538 points, 86 comments)
    6. WooCommerce brings Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to its 380,000 online retailers. (474 points, 98 comments)
    7. A Bitcoin Entrepreneur Jonathan Hamel knowingly misleads a Canadian Parliamentary committee to smear Bitcoin Cash (BCH). More Lawlessness from Bitcoin/Lightning (399 points, 193 comments)
    8. Largest Sports Gambling Site in the World, Bovada, now Accepts BCH. Billions of dollars in transactions a year (388 points, 60 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash support on OpenBazaar now live (365 points, 43 comments)
  18. 4698 points, 7 submissions: cryptorebel
    1. You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1420 points, 433 comments)
    2. President of SBI Holdings: "The vision of the original Bitcoin white paper written by Satoshi Nakamoto calls for a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. That is a powerful vision, and SBI Group will devote resources to enable a future world where Bitcoin Cash is used globally for daily payments." (843 points, 81 comments)
    3. They used to use Bitcoin... (738 points, 176 comments)
    4. Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s (494 points, 433 comments)
    5. CEO of Bitcoin.com Roger Ver challenges Samson Mow to a debate once again, will Samson refuse again? The reason small blockers do not debate and need censorship is because they know their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. (426 points, 208 comments)
    6. Update from BitGo: "Due to strong customer interest BitGo will enable full support of Bitcoin Cash" (407 points, 25 comments)
    7. BitPay CEO hints at possible Bitcoin Cash acceptance: "We do listen to our customers and for quite some time their number 1 complaint has been the high fees and slow confirmation times. We really don't like to pre-announce things though. Things move fast and plans can change at the last minute. " (370 points, 73 comments)
  19. 4339 points, 6 submissions: Anenome5
    1. Government: "Cryptocurrencies are too risky." Also government: "Buy lottery tickets." (1296 points, 139 comments)
    2. Death of a Scamcoin: Bitconnect's front page screenshotted moments before they went private, showing panic, anger, and lots of ill-advised investment claims, several claiming to have lost over $100k (948 points, 309 comments)
    3. Let's End the War and focus on the TRUE ENEMY (730 points, 349 comments)
    4. Archive.org has received over twice as many donations ($4800) in Bitcoincash as compared to BTC. This is how we win. (552 points, 157 comments)
    5. Segwhat? Gavin Andresen has developed a new block propagation algorithm able to compress the block down to 1/10th of the size of a Compact Block (Core's technology) using bloom filters called GRAPHENE. 10 times larger blocks, no size increase! 1mb 10mb, 8mb - 80mb, etc. (413 points, 181 comments)
    6. Remember Ross Ulbricht: Dread Pirate Roberts and the Silk Road experiment (400 points, 217 comments)
  20. 3746 points, 8 submissions: knight222
    1. PSA: /bitcoin IS UNDER ATTACK (761 points, 260 comments)
    2. /btc is trending! (528 points, 63 comments)
    3. Bitstamp To Launch Bitcoin Cash Trading (487 points, 80 comments)
    4. Mycelium.com on Twitter: "We support whatever will allow bitcoin to remain censorship resistant. For now that's only possible with bigger blocks." (442 points, 39 comments)
    5. CBS is referring the new chain as "Bitcoin Cash" and the old chain as "Bitcoin Classic". Ahah (421 points, 121 comments)
    6. Bitcoin cash (BCH) price could lead to bitcoin "death spiral" - Quartz (375 points, 55 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash just destroyed the narrative of a contentious hard fork. There is nothing contentious with free choice. (369 points, 114 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Cash support expected in the next Mycelium release! (363 points, 84 comments)
  21. 3550 points, 6 submissions: singularity87
    1. I am stepping down as a moderator of btc and exiting the bitcoin community and entering the Ethereum community. (1110 points, 482 comments)
    2. Now that the debate is over, lets finally make some progress forward. We are starting a marketing fund to expand Bitcoin Cash adoption. (722 points, 211 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash Logo Animation GIF. Feel free to use. (562 points, 83 comments)
    4. The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up. (440 points, 270 comments)
    5. Now that REAL consensus is forming, be ready for Core to offer a 2MB hardfork as a last ditch effort to retain their power. DO NOT GIVE IN! (363 points, 179 comments)
    6. btc now has ~50% of the active users of Bitcoin. At this rate btc will soon be the dominant bitcoin subreddit. (353 points, 55 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (17415 points, 1759 comments)
  2. H0dl (8425 points, 1127 comments)
  3. knight222 (7888 points, 810 comments)
  4. ForkiusMaximus (7755 points, 700 comments)
  5. MemoryDealers (7539 points, 197 comments)
  6. tippr (7348 points, 2740 comments)
  7. Ant-n (7224 points, 965 comments)
  8. BeijingBitcoins (6072 points, 459 comments)
  9. BitcoinXio (5984 points, 320 comments)
  10. BitcoinIsTehFuture (5845 points, 516 comments)
  11. imaginary_username (5762 points, 471 comments)
  12. Adrian-X (5748 points, 1069 comments)
  13. LexGrom (5224 points, 1592 comments)
  14. cryptorebel (4869 points, 464 comments)
  15. Egon_1 (4769 points, 368 comments)
  16. awemany (4738 points, 643 comments)
  17. Kain_niaK (4561 points, 692 comments)
  18. BitttBurger (4410 points, 525 comments)
  19. PsyRev_ (4176 points, 477 comments)
  20. Bitcoinopoly (4002 points, 414 comments)
  21. poorbrokebastard (3986 points, 719 comments)
  22. vbuterin (3840 points, 22 comments)
  23. Shock_The_Stream (3769 points, 437 comments)
  24. todu (3692 points, 266 comments)
  25. Richy_T (3626 points, 847 comments)
  26. LovelyDay (3595 points, 332 comments)
  27. shadowofashadow (3498 points, 383 comments)
  28. rdar1999 (3475 points, 456 comments)
  29. btcnewsupdates (3403 points, 328 comments)
  30. KoKansei (3286 points, 198 comments)
  31. jonald_fyookball (3219 points, 251 comments)
  32. 1s44c (3186 points, 619 comments)
  33. nanoakron (2989 points, 113 comments)
  34. NilacTheGrim (2925 points, 440 comments)
  35. singularity87 (2746 points, 240 comments)
  36. Vibr8gKiwi (2594 points, 148 comments)
  37. jstolfi (2541 points, 263 comments)
  38. esquonk (2532 points, 2 comments)
  39. fiah84 (2496 points, 289 comments)
  40. unitedstatian (2445 points, 451 comments)
  41. MobTwo (2372 points, 147 comments)
  42. chernobyl169 (2353 points, 199 comments)
  43. kairepaire (2280 points, 17 comments)
  44. ShadowOfHarbringer (2272 points, 206 comments)
  45. playfulexistence (2241 points, 99 comments)
  46. LiamGaughan (2240 points, 83 comments)
  47. redlightsaber (2238 points, 328 comments)
  48. we-are-all-satoshi (2201 points, 39 comments)
  49. Annapurna317 (2198 points, 223 comments)
  50. MagicalTux (2153 points, 114 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. by censorship_notifier (8585 points, 1166 comments)
  2. The idiocracy of bitcoin by PedanticPendant (7772 points, 750 comments)
  3. As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method by boomtnt46 (6980 points, 1178 comments)
  4. Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase by 11111101000 (5329 points, 1019 comments)
  5. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" by Egon_1 (4810 points, 506 comments)
  6. Guess who controls over half a billion Tethers across 3 exchanges—over 73% of USDT currently in circulation. by peptocurrency (4748 points, 635 comments)
  7. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." by BeijingBitcoins (3417 points, 463 comments)
  8. Latest projections show BTC will break the time space continuum by cryptopicker (3292 points, 146 comments)
  9. Two biggest Bitcoin subs according to their counterparts (posted on both subs) by themetalfriend (3135 points, 232 comments)
  10. rBitcoin logic: Cashing out? You should kill yourself instead by DrunkPanda (2918 points, 560 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 2527 points: esquonk's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  2. 2289 points: nanoakron's comment in Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
  3. 2025 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  4. 2018 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
  5. 1215 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
  6. 1211 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
  7. 1184 points: anothertimewaster's comment in Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
  8. 1180 points: TacoPi's comment in Buy, sell, send and receive Bitcoin Cash on Coinbase
  9. 962 points: insanityzwolf's comment in bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
  10. 868 points: SethEllis's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

The Big Blocks Mega Thread

Since this is a pressing and prevalent issue, I thought maybe condensing the essential arguments into one mega thread is better than rehashing everything in new threads all the time. I chose a FAQ format for this so a certain statement can be answered. I don't want to re-post everything here so where appropriate I'm just going to use links.
Disclaimer: This is biased towards big blocks (BIP 101 in particular) but still tries to mention the risks, worries and fears. I think this is fair because all other major bitcoin discussion places severely censor and discourage big block discussion.
 
What is the block size limit?
The block size limit was introduced by Satoshi back in 2010-07-15 as an anti-DoS measure (though this was not stated in the commit message, more info here). Ever since, it has never been touched because historically there was no need and raising the block size limit requires a hard fork. The block size directly limits the number of transactions in a block. Therefore, the capacity of Bitcoin is directly limited by the block size limit.
 
Why does a raise require a hard fork?
Because larger blocks are seen as invalid by old nodes, a block size increase would fork these nodes off the network. Therefore it is a hard fork. However, it is possible to downsize the block limit with a soft fork since smaller blocks would still be seen as valid from old nodes. It is considerably easier to roll out a soft fork. Therefore, it makes sense to roll out a more ambitious hard fork limit and downsize as needed with soft forks if problems arise.
 
What is the deal with soft and hard forks anyways?
See this article by Mike Hearn: https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7#.74502eypb
 
Why do we need to increase the block size?
The Bitcoin network is reaching its imposed block size limit while the hard- and software would be able to support more transactions. Many believe that in its current phase of growth, artificially limiting the block size is stifling adoption, investment and future growth.
Read this article and all linked articles for further reading: http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks
Another article by Mike Hearn: https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32#.uhky4y1ua (this article is a little outdated since both Bitcoin Core and XT now have mempool limits)
 
What is the Fidelity Effect?
It is the Chicken and Egg problem applied to future growth of Bitcoin. If companies do not see how Bitcoin can scale long term, they don't invest which in turn slows down adoption and development.
See here and here.
 
Does an increase in block size limit mean that blocks immediately get larger to the point of the new block size limit?
No, blocks are as large as there is demand for transactions on the network. But one can assume that if the limit is lifted, more users and businesses will want to use the blockchain. This means that blocks will get bigger, but they will not automatically jump to the size of the block size limit. Increased usage of the blockchain also means increased adoption, investment and also price appreciation.
 
Which are the block size increase proposals?
See here.
It should be noted that BIP 101 is the only proposal which has been implemented and is ready to go.
 
What is the long term vision of BIP 101?
BIP 101 tries to be as close to hardware limitations regarding bandwidth as possible so that nodes can continue running at normal home-user grade internet connections to keep the decentralized aspect of Bitcoin alive. It is believed that it is hard to increase the block size limit, so a long term increase is beneficial to planning and investment in the Bitcoin network. Go to this article for further reading and understand what is meant by "designing for success".
BIP 101 vs actual transaction growth visualized: http://imgur.com/QoTEOO2
Note that the actual growth in BIP 101 is piece-wise linear and does not grow in steps as suggested in the picture.
 
What is up with the moderation and censorship on bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /bitcoin?
Proponents of a more conservative approach fear that a block size increase proposal that does not have "developeexpert consensus" should not be implemented via a majority hard fork. Therefore, discussion about the full node clients which implement BIP 101 is not allowed. Since the same individuals have major influence of all the three bitcoin websites (most notably theymos), discussion of Bitcoin XT is censored and/or discouraged on these websites.
 
What is Bitcoin XT anyways?
More info here.
 
What does Bitcoin Core do about the block size? What is the future plan by Bitcoin Core?
Bitcoin Core scaling plan as envisioned by Gregory Maxwell: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html
 
Who governs or controls Bitcoin Core anyways? Who governs Bitcoin XT? What is Bitcoin governance?
Bitcoin Core is governed by a consensus mechanism. How it actually works is not clear. It seems that any major developer can "veto" a change. However, there is one head maintainer who pushes releases and otherwise organizes the development effort. It should be noted that the majority of the main contributors to Bitcoin Core are Blockstream employees.
BitcoinXT follows a benevolent dictator model (as Bitcoin used to follow when Satoshi and later Gavin Andresen were the lead maintainers).
It is a widespread believe that Bitcoin can be separated into protocol and full node development. This means that there can be multiple implementations of Bitcoin that all follow the same protocol and overall consensus mechanism. More reading here. By having multiple implementations of Bitcoin, single Bitcoin implementations can be run following a benevolent dictator model while protocol development would follow an overall consensus model (which is enforced by Bitcoin's fundamental design through full nodes and miners' hash power). It is still unclear how protocol changes should actually be governed in such a model. Bitcoin governance is a research topic and evolving.
 
What are the arguments against a significant block size increase and against BIP 101 in particular?
The main arguments against a significant increase are related to decentralization and therefore robustness against commercial interests and government regulation and intervention. More here (warning: biased Wiki article).
Another main argument is that Bitcoin needs a fee market established by a low block size limit to support miners long term. There is significant evidence and game theory to doubt this claim, as can be seen here.
Finally, block propagation and verification times increase with an increased block size. This in turn increases the orphan rate of miners which means reduced profit. Some believe that this is a disadvantage to small miners because they are not as well connected to other big miners. Also, there is currently a large miner centralization in China. Since most of these miners are behind the Great Firewall of China, their bandwidth to the rest of the world is limited. There is a fear that larger block propagation times favor Chinese miners as long as they have a mining majority. However, there are solutions in development that can drastically reduce block propagation times so this problem will be less of an issue long term.
 
What is up with the fee market and what is the Lightning Network (LN)?
Major Bitcoin Core developers believe that a fee market established by a low block size is needed for future security of the bitcoin network. While many believe fundamentally this is true, there is major dispute if a fee market needs to be forced by a low block size. One of the main LN developers thinks such a fee market through low block size is needed (read here). The Lightning Network is a non-bandwidth scaling solution. It uses payment channels that can be opened and closed using Bitcoin transactions that are settled on the blockchain. By routing transactions through many of these payment channels, in theory it is possible to support a lot more transactions while a user only needs very few payment channels and therefore rarely has to use (settle on) the actual blockchain. More info here.
 
How does LN and other non-bandwidth scaling solutions relate to Bitcoin Core and its long term scaling vision?
Bitcoin Core is headed towards a future where block sizes are kept low so that a fee market is established long term that secures miner incentives. The main scaling solution propagated by Core is LN and other solutions that only sometimes settle transactions on the main Bitcoin blockchain. Essentially, Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer for solutions that are built on top of Bitcoin's core technology. Many believe that long term this might be inevitable. But forcing this off-chain development already today seems counterproductive to Bitcoin's much needed growth and adoption phase before such solutions can thrive. It should also be noted that no major non-bandwidth scaling solution (such as LN) has been tested or even implemented. It is not even clear if such off-chain solutions are needed long term scaling solutions as it might be possible to scale Bitcoin itself to handle all needed transaction volumes. Some believe that the focus on a forced fee market by major Bitcoin Core developers represents a conflict of interest since their employer is interested in pushing off-chain scaling solutions such as LN (more reading here).
 
Are there solutions in development that show the block sizes as proposed via BIP 101 are viable and block propagation times in particular are low enough?
Yes, most notably: Weak Blocks, Thin Blocks and IBLT.
 
What is Segregated Witness (SW) and how does it relate to scaling and block size increases?
See here. SW among other things is a way to increase the block size once without a hard fork (the actual block size is not increased but there is extra information exchanged separately to blocks).
 
Feedback and more of those question/answer type posts (or revised question/answer pairs) appreciated!
 
ToDo and thoughts for expansion:
@Mods: Maybe this could be stickied?
submitted by BIP-101 to btc [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2017-05-17 to 2018-05-16 16:37 PDT

Period: 364.19 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 171217
Rate (per day) 2.75 467.46
Unique Redditors 530 18280
Combined Score 587073 990947

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 27576 points, 60 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. I'm Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com and world's first investor in Bitcoin startups. AMA (974 points, 941 comments)
    2. The pro Bitcoin Cash video from CNBC made it to the very front page of Yahoo.com! (863 points, 191 comments)
    3. I (Roger Ver) will be doing an AMA on Monday Dec 18th starting at 10AM EST on /BTC because /Bitcoin is completely censored. (820 points, 413 comments)
    4. Reminder: Blockstream and Core got 100% of everything they asked for. (808 points, 333 comments)
    5. I'm giving away $100 each of BCH and BTC on live TV tomorrow by displaying the private key. Guess why? (744 points, 832 comments)
    6. How wrong were they? More than 2 years ago the CEO of Lightning Labs said LN would be ready in less than 6 months (689 points, 276 comments)
    7. To the Censorship loving tyrants in /Bitcoin, don't Say Bitcoin.com didn't warn you! "In the unlikely event that the 2MB block size increase portion of Segwit2x fails to activate, Bitcoin.com will immediately shift all company resources to supporting Bitcoin Cash exclusively." (677 points, 364 comments)
    8. I just bet 1,000 BTC (~$4M USD) that Segwit 2X coin will have more value than Segwit 1x coin. (645 points, 399 comments)
    9. If you think consumers are going to throw away $100’s (and soon $1000’s) on transaction fees to open up a payment channel on the Lightning network, you are delusional. (599 points, 221 comments)
    10. PSA: If you get an email from me (Roger Ver) asking to borrow BTC, you can be 100% sure it as a scam. If they ask to borrow BCH, it is more plausible, but still a scam. (597 points, 73 comments)
  2. 23187 points, 41 submissions: Egon_1
    1. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" (4814 points, 511 comments)
    2. WSJ: "[bitcoin core] fees have reached an average cost of about $30 per transaction. That makes bitcoin virtually unusable for all but very large transactions. The Bitcoin Cash crowd is just trying to offer a solution to that problem." (1303 points, 339 comments)
    3. Rick Falkvinge:"Fun fact: I am aware of a truckload of companies currently in the process of converting from Bitcoin Legacy to #Bitcoin Cash. I am aware of zero (0) companies going the other direction." (654 points, 228 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin.com wallet now displays "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin Core" balances. Should satisfy everyone, right? ;)" (626 points, 448 comments)
    5. GDAX: "We will open the BCH-BTC Order Book on Wednesday, January 17 at 9:00 am PST." (624 points, 114 comments)
    6. Stephen (BitPay CEO):"a typical #bitcoin transaction costs $1.80 now, >200k unconfirmed transactions, time for a hard fork to larger blocks ... 8mb please" (545 points, 113 comments)
    7. Erik Voorhees: "Fellow Bitcoiners, are you ever going to realize how problematic these fees are getting? Avg fees now over $40 per tx. A year ago avg fee was $4. A year prior, $0.40. Growing faster than price, and exponentially with usage. We just spent $4800 to move 15 BTC in one TX." (539 points, 147 comments)
    8. @Bitcoin: "The ownership of this account has not changed hands. I became busy with other things, much has changed since then and I've decided to take a more active role in the community once again." (536 points, 125 comments)
    9. BitPay CEO: “If people can’t engage in commerce, it’s hard to imagine why they’d want to store their money in Bitcoin in the first place” (530 points, 134 comments)
    10. U.S. Regulators to Subpoena Crypto Exchange Bitfinex, Tether (527 points, 196 comments)
  3. 13318 points, 28 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Censored! Youtube removes Roger Ver's video on "The effects of Censorship and Propaganda upon Bitcoin" (1001 points, 297 comments)
    2. CNBC is waking up (882 points, 145 comments)
    3. Despite massing brigading from bitcoin and core, @Bitcoin twitter account has gained 50k subscribers since it came out in support of BCH last week. (623 points, 198 comments)
    4. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. (616 points, 114 comments)
    5. Bitfinex defines Bitcoin Cash as the coin that fulfills the original promise of p2p cash, a bitcoin upgrade that is ready to scale and sound money! #Winning (608 points, 166 comments)
    6. Wouldn't wanna be this shopper. (587 points, 125 comments)
    7. GDAX enabling EUBCH trading pair next week. #winning 🎆 (574 points, 67 comments)
    8. Thank to this community's effort, Forbes has corrected Kyle's Torpey's LN article to clarify LTC tx fees is much higher than BCH. Now let's ask for 1 more correction: Bitcoin cash is not Bcash. Links in comments. (508 points, 176 comments)
    9. Elizabeth Stark of Lightning labs calls out Blockstream on letting users tinker with LN that's neither safe nor ready for mainnet. (492 points, 269 comments)
    10. The $2000 tip for Bitcoin ABC dev shows we don't need blockstream to pay our developers, we can do community funding through tippr! (462 points, 131 comments)
  4. 10330 points, 13 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked." (3417 points, 465 comments)
    2. Dear Reddit Admins: We need to talk about /Bitcoin (1340 points, 284 comments)
    3. Paid for this whisky with Bitcoin Cash! Ginza bar becomes third Tokyo retail establishment to accept BCC (749 points, 60 comments)
    4. Samson Mow says Bitcoin isn't for people earning less than $2 a day. With average transaction fees now at $27.20, is Bitcoin even for people earning less than $100 a day? (661 points, 163 comments)
    5. Protip: If you are new to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, you really should read the document that started it all, the Bitcoin whitepaper [PDF] (647 points, 73 comments)
    6. /Bitcoin in a nutshell (537 points, 69 comments)
    7. Three years ago today, Mike Hearn published an article explaining exactly what would happen when the 1MB blocksize limit was hit. He was right on all counts. (482 points, 173 comments)
    8. Shit, they're on to us (455 points, 67 comments)
    9. "Am I so out of touch?" (437 points, 164 comments)
    10. abrkn on Twitter: I've bought some Bitcoin Cash. Now I just need @Blockstream to keep kicking developers, banning wallets, and insulting miners. (426 points, 95 comments)
  5. 9412 points, 19 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. /bitcoin is censoring the NIST report that says "Bitcoin Cash is the original blockchain" and Bitcoin Core is not. If you have to censor to get people to believe you, then you have lost. (854 points, 500 comments)
    2. Someone hacked the account todu which was a mod here to point users to /bitcoin (736 points, 263 comments)
    3. Congrats: /btc has reached 150,000 subscribers! (702 points, 356 comments)
    4. Twitter continues to go downhill - flags @Bitcoin account as ‘temporarily restricted due to unusual activity’ (637 points, 216 comments)
    5. There is a huge edit war on Wikipedia where trolls like the user "Jtbobwaysf" are trying very hard to inject the word "bcash" into Bitcoin Cash pages and reverting/editing other pages that speak factually poorly on topics such as Lightning Network, Segwit, etc. (626 points, 153 comments)
    6. What /bitcoin mods desperately don't want you to see! (597 points, 106 comments)
    7. /btc is trending on reddit today, congrats everyone! (584 points, 18 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit (579 points, 335 comments)
    9. /DarkNetMarkets shut down by Reddit (452 points, 324 comments)
    10. Just a heads up on what is going on in this sub - please be aware of what is happening. There is a coordinated effort by a specific group to undermine and destroy everything that we support because they are about to lose power come mid-November. (422 points, 200 comments)
  6. 9302 points, 2 submissions: censorship_notifier
    1. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. (8584 points, 1173 comments)
    2. New anti-censorship bot for /bitcoin (718 points, 347 comments)
  7. 8263 points, 15 submissions: jessquit
    1. You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction (1375 points, 386 comments)
    2. There never was a "scaling problem." The only problem is "people that don't want Bitcoin to scale." (776 points, 419 comments)
    3. Please stop saying "Increase the block size" (661 points, 450 comments)
    4. [PSA] If your Bitcoin are not ready-to-transact in a wallet whose keys you exclusively control, then you don't control your Bitcoin (625 points, 216 comments)
    5. Why us old-school Bitcoiners argue that Bitcoin Cash should be considered "the real Bitcoin" (585 points, 587 comments)
    6. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (535 points, 346 comments)
    7. Why large blocks: because one man's "coffee purchase transaction" is another man's monthly income (508 points, 104 comments)
    8. There is a word for a "store of value" with no underlying utility, and that word is "collectible" (481 points, 171 comments)
    9. Ripple user comes to defend Ripple, gets hundreds of upvotes, but can't answer the most fundamental question: what prevents inflation? (462 points, 407 comments)
    10. If you don't agree that the mission is to make onchain transactions readily available to ALL people at ALL income levels then you don't understand the whole reason Bitcoin was invented to begin with (449 points, 203 comments)
  8. 8227 points, 17 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. No Neo I'm trying to tell you ... (700 points, 77 comments)
    2. Blockstream is falling apart - Greg Maxwell resigns - Blockstream takes down team page in a hurry to reorg team - Adam Back must be worried (680 points, 496 comments)
    3. * Ripple is not mineable (it is a centralized private blockchain run by banks) (628 points, 254 comments)
    4. rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains (576 points, 188 comments)
    5. Fixed - Bitcoin Cash moving money far better. SegWitCoin moving money with high fees and slow confirmation times! (538 points, 105 comments)
    6. Blockstream investor emails leaked - shows Blockstream motivation to steal transaction fees from miners and pay to Liquid sidechain customers (531 points, 250 comments)
    7. Vitalik Buterin says what we've all been saying - CoinDesk is scammy and complicit bad actor in the cryptocurrency world and should be shunned (511 points, 61 comments)
    8. "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO (494 points, 143 comments)
    9. Coinbase comes through and does the correct thing and adds clarification on the upcoming Segwit2x Fork (452 points, 199 comments)
    10. Core trolls have hard decisions to make (437 points, 141 comments)
  9. 8207 points, 19 submissions: Windowly
    1. "If BCH hashpower > BTC, I'll start referring to it as just 'Bitcoin' :" ~ Gavin on twitter (773 points, 238 comments)
    2. You want to go grab a coffee?? (643 points, 420 comments)
    3. "I guess my idea of "freedom from corrupt banks" didn't include transaction fees that forced 99% of the world's population to keep using banks."~Erik Voorhees (595 points, 122 comments)
    4. "With recent developments, I'm putting all available dev resources to retool my software for #Bitcoin Cash. I suspect I'm far from alone."~Rick Falkvinge (Pirate Party) (493 points, 134 comments)
    5. "We've tested Bitcoin Cash vs Lightning Network and... LN feels so unnecessary and over-complicated. Also, still more expensive than Bitcoin Cash fees - and that's not taking into account the $3 fees each way you open or close a $50 channel. Also two different balances? Confusing" ~ HandCash (465 points, 252 comments)
    6. That Awkward Moment. . . . (431 points, 129 comments)
    7. "There was an entire mall in 2013 to 2015 in Berlin that accepted Bitcoin. This stopped when fees rose. There was wide adoption once. Fees kill use"~Dr. Craig S. Wright (427 points, 155 comments)
    8. "Billion-dollar corporations take note: Bitcoin Cash is open for business! Just try to fill up our blocks, I dare you. There will be no "Fidelity Effect" with BCH. Unlike BTC, we want you to use the Blockchain. BCH never really hits a scale ceiling."~Dr. Peter Rizun (419 points, 177 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash finally released on Open Bazaar! (417 points, 36 comments)
    10. Trezor is refusing to provide full wallet support for Segwit2x. This means if you buy Segwit2X on an exchange you can't store it in your hardware wallet. Another reason to buy a Ledger! (394 points, 200 comments)
  10. 8112 points, 2 submissions: PedanticPendant
    1. The idiocracy of bitcoin (7759 points, 751 comments)
    2. I made a new version of the well-known "Differences between the two versions of Bitcoin" diagram which I think is more informative (353 points, 135 comments)
  11. 7032 points, 11 submissions: rdar1999
    1. South Koreans sign petition (100k signatures) to reject ban proposal and 30k signatures asking to FIRE the Justice Minister and the Finance Minister for market manipulation. Crypto is winning!! (1858 points, 119 comments)
    2. BREAKING NEWS: South Korean Government confirms NO CRYPTO BAN. What they will do is to enforce regulations, anti money laundering task force, anti market manipulation, the usual stuff. (1089 points, 52 comments)
    3. Friendly reminder: Vitalik "I consider BCH a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name." (800 points, 181 comments)
    4. Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (563 points, 262 comments)
    5. GDAX: Bitcoin Cash Launch Retrospective -- trades were halted after 3 minutes because THE STASH DRIED OUT DUE TO AN AVALANCHE OF BUY ORDERS (486 points, 164 comments)
    6. While Jamie Dimon is shutting down your accounts, Russia’s largest State Bank is about to open cryptocurrency exchange In europe (433 points,