Is Bitcoin Dead? – HitBTC Official Blog / HitBTC

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.

They've finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - now they're begging for some kind of "compromise".
But actually, markets aren't about compromise. Markets are about competition. Markets are about winner-takes-all.
And the Bitcoin whitepaper never mentions anything about "compromise".
It simply says that 51% of the hashpower determines what is Bitcoin.
And as we know - the best coin will win.
Which will probably be Bitcoin Unlimited with its market-based blocksizes - and not SegWit with its 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize based on a dangerous anyone-can-spend spaghetti-code soft-fork.
Let's review how this played out:
And lo and behold, Core/Blockstream's reliance on fiat funding and central planning and censorship has culminated in this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit, with the following worthless "features" that nobody even wants:
No wonder the only two miners who are supporting this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit are Blockstream's two buddies BitFury and BTCC - who are (surprise! surprise!) also funded by the same corrupt fiat-financed central bankers who fund Blockstream itself.
Market-based solutions from independent devs are better than censorship-based non-solutions from devs getting paid by central bankers
So eventually, a couple of market-based, non-fiat-funded dev teams produced Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic.
And (surprise! surprise!) these two market-based, non-fiat-funded dev teams produced much better technology and economics - based on the original principles of Satoshi's Bitcoin:
By listening to real people in the actual market, and by following Satoshi's principles as stated in the whitepaper, Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to (surprise! surprise!) offer what real people in the actual market actually want - which is currently:
FlexTrans is much better than SegWit
Also, these independent, non-fiat-financed devs developed Flexible Transactions, which is way better than SegWit.
Flexible Transactions can easily fix malleability and quadratic hashing - while also introducing a simple, easy-to-use, future-proof tag-based format similar to JSON or HTML permitting future upgrades without the need for a hard fork.
So Flexible Transactions provides the same things as SegWit - without the dangerous mess of SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork hack - which Core/Blockstream tried to force on everyone - because they want to take away our right to vote via a hard fork - because they know that if we actually had a hard fork a/k/a full node referendum, everyone would vote against Core/Blockstream.
The market wants to decide the blocksize
So more and more of the smart, non-Blockstream-aligned miners, starting with ViaBTC and now including many others, have been adopting Bitcoin Unlimited - because they understand that:
  • Market-based blocksizes are the right, consensus-based mechanism to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling to solve the urgent problems of transaction delays and network congestion - now and in the future
  • Every increase in the blocksize roughly corresponds to the same increase squared in terms of price
  • ie 2x bigger blocks will lead to 4x higher price, 3x bigger blocks will correspond with 9x higher price, etc. - which means that bigger blocks will make everyone happy: more profits for miners, and no more high fees or transaction delays for users.
Now Core/Blockstream are starting to bitch and moan and beg about "compromise"
And actually, we couldn't answer "Sorry it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to.
Because markets and economics and cryptocurrencies aren't about compromises.
Markets are about competition - they're about winner-takes-all.
Nakamoto Consensus is about 51% of the hashpower decides what the rules are.
Imagine if Yahoo Email were to suddenly start begging with Google Mail for "compromise". What would that even mean in the first place??
Yahoo wrote crappy email code - based on their crappy corporate culture - so the market abandoned their crappy (and buggy and insecure) email service.
Core/Blockstream is similar in some ways to Yahoo. They wrote crappy code - because they have a crappy "corporate culture" - because they accept millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers at places like AXA - and because they accept censorship on shit-forums like r\bitcoin - which is why they have no clue about the real needs of real people in the real market in the real world.
Censorship and fiat made Core/Blockstream fragile and out-of-touch
Core/Blockstream devs enjoy the "luxury" of being able to put their head in the sand and hide from the reality of the "shreaking" masses of actual people actually trying to use Bitcoin, because:
  • They get millions of dollars in fiat shoveled to them by central bankers,
  • They conduct their "debates" in the fantasy-land of the shit-forum r\bitcoin where all the important comments get deleted and all the intelligent posters got banned long ago - including quotes from Satoshi.
And then (surprise! surprise!) the following happened:
But in a decentralized, permissionless, open-source system like Bitcoin, there is not a single thing that CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc at their shitty little AXA-funded startup Blockstream or u/theymos and u/bashco on their shitty little censored forum r\bitcoin can do to stop Bitcoin Unlimited from taking over the network - because in open-source and in economics and in markets, the best code and the best cryptocurrency wins.
Everyone (except Core/Blockstream) predicted this would happen
So now - predictably - the Core/Blockstream devs and their low-information supporters are all running around saying "Nobody could have predicted this!"
But actually everyone has been shouting at the top of their lungs predicting this for years - including the most important old-time Bitcoin devs supporting on-chain scaling like Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik who were all "censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed" - plus new-time devs like Peter Rizun u/Peter__R who provided major scaling innovations like XThin - by the vicious drooling toxic authoritarian goons involved with Core/Blockstream.
Everyone has been predicting the current delays and congestion and high fees for years, out here in the reality of the marketplace, in the reality of the uncensored forums - away from Core/Blockstream's centralized back-room closed-door fiat-funded censorship-supported PowerPoint presentations in Hong Kong and Silicon Valley, away from years and years of Core/Blockstream's all-talk-no-action scaling stalling conferences.
The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about "compromise" and "censorship" and "central planning".
The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about yet-another centrally planned blocksize (Now with 1.7MB! SegWit is scaling!TM) which some economically ignorant fiat-funded dev team happened to pull out of their ass and bundle into a radical and irresponsible spaghetti-code SegWit soft-fork.
Markets aren't about "compromise". Markets are about competition.
As u/ForkiusMaximus recently pointed out: The market couldn't even give a fuck if it wanted to - because markets and cryptocurrencies are not about the politics of "compromise" - they're about the economics of competition.
Markets are about decentralization, and they're about Nakamoto Consensus, where 51% of the hashpower decides the rules and everyone else either gets on the bandwagon or withers away watching their hashpower and coin price sink into oblivion.
So, anyone who even brings up the topic of "compromise" is simply showing that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work, and how Nakamoto Consensus works.
This actually isn't very surprising. Blockstream CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and all the rest of the so-called "Core devs" and all their low-information hangers-on like the economic idiot Blockstream founder Mark Friedenbach u/maaku7 have never really understood Bitcoin or markets.
And that's fine and normal. Plenty of individuals don't understand markets very well. But such people simply lose their own money - and they generally don't get put in charge of losing $20 billion of other people's money.
Markets don't need managers or central planners.
Markets run very well on their own - and they don't like central planning or censorship.
Now Core/Blockstream has finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase
So now some people at Core/Blockstream and some of their low-information supporters have have started bitching and moaning and whining about "compromise", as they sink into the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - while their plans are all in shambles, and they've failed in their attempts to hijack our network and our currency.
Meanwhile, the Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about a bunch of central planners and censors whining about "compromise".
Bitcoin Unlimited just keeps stealing more and more hashpower away from Core - until the day comes when we decide to fork their ass into the garbage heap of shitty, failed alt-coins.
Fuck Blockstream/Core and the central bankers and censors they rode in on
We told them for years that they were only shooting themselves in the foot with their closed-door back-room fiat-financed wheeling and dealing and their massive censorship.
We told them they were only giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with.
Now that it's actually happening, we couldn't say "it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to - because there is no such thing as "compromise" in markets or cryptocurrencies.
Markets are all about competition
And Bitcoin is all about 51% of the hashpower.
  • Bitcoin Core decided to bet on hard-coded centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize based on a a shitty spaghetti-code soft-fork. That's their choice. They made their bed now let them lie in it.
  • Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited decided to bet on market-based blocksizes. And that's the market's choice. Bitcoin Unlimited listened to the market - and (suprise! surprise!) that's why more and more hashpower is now mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks.
Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
And may the best coin win.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Peter Todd's RBF (Replace-By-Fee) goes against one of the foundational principles of Bitcoin: IRREVOCABLE CASH TRANSACTIONS. RBF is the most radical, controversial change ever proposed to Bitcoin - and it is being forced on the community with no consensus, no debate and no testing. Why?

Many people are starting to raise serious questions and issues regarding Peter Todd's "Opt-In Full RBF", as summarized below:
(1) RBF violates one of the fundamental principles of the Bitcoin protocol: irrevocable cash transactions.
Interesting point!
Th[is] really is [a] drastically different vision of what Bitcoin according to the core dev team...
It would be nice [if] they [wrote their] own "white paper" so we know where they are going...
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxflx55
"From a usability / communications perspective, RBF is all wrong. When the main function of your technology is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING, you don't add an "opt-in" feature which ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING."
BeYourOwnBank
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/
(2) Who even requested RBF in the first place? What urgent existing "problem" is RBF intended to solve? If you claim to be a supporter of RBF, would you be willing to go on the record and comment here on how it would personally benefit you?
Still waiting for an answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/
Lots of back and forth bit no answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfjxp7
Intentionally doing zero-conf for any reason other than expediting a payment to the same recipients is nothing more than attempted fraud. There needs to be a good reason for enabling this, and last time I looked the case has not been made.
People with a black and white view of the world who believe "0 conf bad, 1 conf good" simply do not understand how bitcoin works. By its random nature, bitcoin never makes final commitment to a transaction. Even with six confirmations there is still a chance the transaction will be reversed. In other words, bitcoin finality is not black and white. Instead, there is a probability distribution of confidence that a transaction will not be reversed. Software changes that make it easier to defraud people who have been reasonably accepting 0 conf transactions are of highly questionable value, as they reduce the performance (by increasing delay for a given confidence).
If transactions with appropriate fees start failing to ever confirm because of "block size" issues, then bitcoin is simply broken and, if it can not be fixed bitcoin will end up as dead as a doornail.
tl121
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf9udt
Transactions spending the same utxo were (until now) not relayed (except by XT nodes). So it wasn't as simple as just sending a double spend, because the transaction wouldn't propagate. FSS-RBF seemed like a good option to get your tx unstuck if you paid too little. Pure RBF I'm not sure what the point of it is. What problem is it solving?
peoplma
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfdb37
When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes.
So the opposite is actually true. The community actively do not want this change. Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this major change to the protocol?
yeeha4
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfbvvn
yeehaw4: "When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes." / pizzaface18: "Peter ... tried to push a change that will cripple some use cases of Bitcoin."
BeYourOwnBank
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/
(3) RBF breaks zero-conf. Satoshi supported zero-conf. Were any actual merchants who have figured out pragmatic business approaches using zero-conf even consulted on this radical, controversial change?
My business accepts bitcoin and helps people with minor cash transfers and purchases. Fraud has NEVER been an issue as long as the transactions have been broadcast on the blockchain with appropriate fees. We usually send people their cash as soon as the transaction is broadcast.
Now we have to wait 10 minutes to avoid getting cheated out of hundreds of dollars, vastly increasing the service cost of accepting bitcoin. And we have to tell customers we promote bitcoin to that they are likely to be cheated if they don't wait 10 minutes while buying their bitcoin. It is such a spectacularly stupid thing to do, adding uncertainty and greater potential for fraud at every link of the transaction chain. Thanks a lot, Peter.
trevelyan22
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfjn78
Jeez, we need to give this "zero-conf was never safe" meme a rest already. Cash was also "never safe", but it's widely used because it works reasonably well in the context it's used. These people would probably advocate for a cashless society as well.
imaginary_username
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfisut
I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.
The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.
A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1 0
4 1
16 4
64 16
80% 20%
So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.
The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.
— satoshi
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
"RBF is agaisnt Satoshi's Vision. Peter Todd and others attacking Satoshi's vision again, while Gavin Andresen upholds his original vision steadfastly."
Plive
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ukc52/rbf_is_agaisnt_satoshis_vision_peter_todd_and/
Zero conf was always dangerous, true, but the attacker is rolling a dice with a double spend. And it is detectable because you have to put your double spend transaction on the network within the transaction propagation time (which is measured in seconds). That means in the shop, while the attacker is buying the newspaper, the merchant can get an alert from their payment processor saying "this transaction has a double spend attempt". Wrestling them to the ground is an option. Stealing has to be done in person... No different then from just shop lifting. The attacker takes their chance that the stealing transaction won't be the one that is mined.
With rbf, the attacker has up to the next block time to decide to release their double spend transaction. That means the attacker can be out of the shop and ten minutes away by car before the merchant gets the double spend warning from their payment processor. Stealing is not in person and success is guaranteed by the network.
Conclusion: every merchant and every payment processor will simply refuse to accept any rbf opt in transaction. That opt in might as well be a flag that says "enable stealing from you with this transaction"... Erm no thanks.
There might be a small window while wallet software is updated, but after that this " feature " will go dark. Nobody is going to accept a cheque signed "mickey mouse", and nobody is going to accept a transaction marked rbf.
Strangely, that means all this fuss about it getting merged is moot. It will inevitably not be used.
kingofthejaffacakes
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfkkr3
(4) What new problems could RBF create?
This opens up a new kind of vandalism that will ensure that no wallets use this feature.
The way it works is that if you make a transaction, and then double spend the transaction with a higher fee, the one with the higher fee will take priority.
DeftNerd
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfhd0m
RBF as released is a really, really stupid policy change that will open up Bitcoin to blackmail and wholesale theft of transactions.
Bitcoin XT can easily be better than the confused, agenda-ridden rubbish being released by Blockstream and their fellow-travellers.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkeah
This is truly unprecedented. There is MAJOR MONEY and MAJOR FORCES trying to destroy Bitcoin right now. We are witnessing history here. This might completely destroy the Bitcoin experiment
scotty321
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf53xn
I [too am] curious as to why Todd has been pushing that hard for RBF. People can double-spend if they really want to already, without any help from BS implementation.
thaolx
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf4t8l
(5) RBF apologists such as eragmus have been trying to placate objections by repeatedly emphasizing that this version of RBF is ok, saying that this is only "Opt-In (Full) RBF". But does the "opt-in" nature of this particular implementation of RBF really mitigate its potential problems?
"opt-in" is a bit of a red-herring.
As I understand: say I'm a vendor who doesn't want to accept RBF transactions. So I don't opt-in. I'm still stuck accepting RBF transactions because the sender, not the receiver, has the control.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxflg13
bitcoin is a push system.
how do I opt-out of a transaction generated and confirmed entirely outside my control?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxflhki
You are right you cannot opt-out.. You will have to wait ten minutes if you have recived a RBF Tx..
The user experience doesn't seem to be a priority for the core dev team...
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxfls9o
It's opt-in in theory, but that means everyone in the community who writes software which deals with transactions now has to develop code to deal with the ramifications.
discoltk
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfec1o
Yes it is opt-in, which means I have to anticipate ... congestion beforehand to use it. This has caused me troubles recently. Normally I use low-fee mode to transact and switch mode when the network is congested. A few times either I did not know about the congestion or forgot to switch mode and my txn got stuck for 12-48h. So for me this opt-in does nothing of help. If I was conscious about the congestion I would have switch to high-fee mode, no RBF needed.
...Or I have to enabled RBF for all my txns. Then there's problem of receivers have to all upgrade their wallet after the wallet devs choose to implement it. And just to add one more major complication when consider 0-conf.
thaolx
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfbbn6
What is the point of opt in rbf if it's not a good way to pay lower miner fees? According to nullc, if you guess too low then you end up paying for two transactions
specialenmity
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfoi99
(6) Who would benefit from RBF?
"Hopefully this will give Bitcoin payment processors a financial incentive to support Lightning Network development."
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/
It seems to me like RBF is addressing a problem (delays due to too-low fees) which would not exist if we had larger blocks. It seems fishy to make this and lightning networks to solve the problem when there's a much simpler solution in plain view.
We should set the bar for deceit and mischief unusually high on this one bc there is so much at stake, an entire banking empire.
ganesha1024
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfde8f
RBF seems at best to be a duct-tape solution to a problem caused by not raising the block size. in the process it kills zero conf (more or less).
rglfnt
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/cxfkqoh
PT [Peter Todd] is part of a group of devs who propose to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up transaction fees.
IOW [In other words], he's a glorified central planner.
A free market moves around such engineered scarcity. See also: the music business.
tl;dr stop running core.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/cxfljrk
This maybe a needed feature if Bitcoin get stuck with 1MB..
You might need to jack-up the fee several time to get your fees in a blocks in the future..
It seems that 1MB crrippecoin is really part of their vision.
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxfluyt
RBF makes sense in a world where blocks are small and always full.
It creates a volatile transaction pricing market where bidders try to outbid each other for the limited space in the current block of txns.
It serves the dual goals of limiting transactions and maximizing miner revenue resulting from the artificial scarcity being imposed by the block size limit.
The unfortunate side effect is that day to day P2P transactions on the Bitcoin network will become relatively expensive and will be forced onto another layer, or coin.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfksk7
RBF offers nothing in a world where there is always a little extra space in the block for the next transaction. It only makes sense in a world where blocks are full.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxflcn1
Unless your goal is to harm bitcoin.
Anen-o-me
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxflljw
(7) RBF violates two common-sense principles:
- "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid);
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
To say it a bit harsher but IMO warranted: P. Todd seems to be busy inventing useless crap and making things complicated for wallet devs...
awemany
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfkwvi
(8) Why is the less-safe version of RBF the one being released ("Full") rather than the "safe(r)" version (FSS - First-Seen Safe)?
Peter Todd had proposed two different versions of RBF: "Full" vs "FSS" (First-Seen Safe).
"Full" is the more dangerous version, because it allows general double-spending (I can't even believe we're even saying things like "allows general double-spending" - but that's the kind of crap Peter Todd is trying to foist on us).
"FSS" is supposedly a bit "safer", because is only allows double-spending a transaction with the same output.
What's being released now is "Opt-In Full RBF".
First-seen-safe restricts replace-by-fee to only replacing transactions with the same output (prevents double spending).
The reason this feature is being added is they see Bitcoin as a settlement network, so when there's a backlog users should be able to replace their transaction with a higher-fee one so it's included. It's to deal with the cripplingly low blocksizes.
Someone should just implement and merge first-seen-safe, since that's much more non-controversial. Keeps 0-confs safe(r) while enabling re-submitting transactions.
tytyty_
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxff3ej
I would have preferred first-seen-safe RBF, certainly. It can be a useful tool to just bump the transaction fee on an existing transaction.
coinaday
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf5eno
Ok, so if the only benefit of RBF is to unstick stuck transactions by increasing the fee; why did you use "Full RBF" instead of "FSS RBF"? Full RBF allows the sender to increase the fee and change who the receiver is. FSS (First-Seen-Safe) RBF only allows the sender to increase the fee, but does not allow the sender to change who the receiver is.
Tldr: FSS RBF should be enough to enable your wanted benefit of being able to resend stuck transactions by increasing their fee, but you chose Full RBF anyway. Why?
todu
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfm5qb
The benefit of opt-in RBF:
Now, when a transaction is not going through because fee was accidentally made too low or if there is a spam attack on the network, a user can "un-stuck" his/her transaction by re-sending it with a higher fee. No more being held to the mercy of miners maybe confirming your transaction, or not. The user gets some power back.
If this was the actual problem at hand, why not restrict the RBF to only increasing the fee, but not changing the output addresses.
RBF in it's current form is nothing but a tool to facilitate double spending. That is, it lowers the bar for default nodes to assist facilitating double spending. Which is VERY BAD for Bitcoin, imho.
Serisouly, I don't know what's gotten into those devs ACK'ing this decrease in Bitcoin's trustwortiness.
Kazimir82
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfn295
(9) Peter Todd has a track record of trying to break features which aren't perfect - even when real-world users find those features "good enough" to use in practice. Do you support Peter Todd's perfectionist and vandalist approach over the pragmatist "good-enough" approach, and if so, why or why not?
Destroying something just because it isn't perfect is stupid. By that logic we should even kill Bitcoin itself.
kraml
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfcmc7
How did a troll like peter todd get in control of bitcoin? This is fucking unbelievable.
Vibr8gKiwi
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfk89n
(10) Could the "game theory" on RBF backfire, and end up damaging Bitcoin?
And what if some/all miners simply hold RBF-enabled transactions into a separate pool and extract maximum value per transaction i.e. wait until senders cough up more & more ...
A very dangerous change that will actively encourage miners to collaborate on extracting higher fees or even extorting senders trying to 'fix' their transactions.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkozk
Peter Todd has a history of loving Game Theory, but he hasn't really applied those principals to the technological changes he's unilaterally making.
I don't understand how so many people could have been driven away or access removed so now he's able to make these changes despite community outcry.
DeftNerd
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkyok
A miner could simply separate all RBF-enabled TX into a separate list and wait for higher and higher fees to be paid. It's kind of like putting a "Take my money, Pls!!!" sign on your forehead and and going shopping.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfkha2
opens door for collusion and possibly extortion ... sender has flagged willingness to pay more.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfl64y
(11) RBF is a controversial, radical change to the Bitcoin protocol. Why has Peter Todd been allowed to force this on our community with no debate, no consensus and no testing?
It's not uncontroversial. There is clearly controversy. You can say the concerns are trumped up, invalid. But if the argument against even discussing XT is that the issue is controversial, the easy ACK'ing of this major change strikes many as hypocritical.
There is not zero impact. Someone WILL be double spent as a result of this. You may blame that person for accepting a transaction they shouldn't, or using a wallet that neglected to update to notify them that their transaction was reversible. But it cannot be said that no damage will result due to this change.
And in my view most importantly, RBF is a cornerstone in supporting those who believe that we need to keep small blocks. The purpose for this is to enable a more dynamic fee market to develop. I fear this is a step in the direction of a slippery slope.
(12) How does the new RBF feature activate?
Does anyone know how RBF activates? I mean if wallets are not upgraded this could be very dangerous for users. Because even if its opt-in this could kill zero confirmation for good.
seweso
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf3ui0
(13) PT on TP: Peter Todd fulfills the toilet-paper prophecy! [comic]
raisethelimit
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujjzn/pt_on_tp_peter_todd_fulfills_the_toiletpape
(14) RBF: A Counter-Argument - by Mike Hearn
https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d
(15) If you're against RBF, what can you do?
the solution to all this, is actually rather simple. Take the power away from these people. Due to the nature of bitcoin, we've always had that power. There never was a need for an "official" or "reference" implementation of the software. For a few years it was simply the most convenient, the mo[s]t efficient, and the best way to work out all the initial kinks bitcoin had. It was also a sort of restricted field in that (obviously) there were few people in the world who truly understood to the degree required to make a) design change proposals, and b) code for them (and note that while up until now this has been the case, it's not necessary for these 2 roles to be carried out by the same people). The last few months' debates over the blocksize limit have shown and educated thst a lot of people now truly understand what's what. And what's more one of the original core-devs (Gavin), already gave us the gift of proving in the real world that democracy in bitcoin can truly exist via voting with the software one (or miners) runs, without meaning to.
BitcoinXT was a huge gift to the community, and it's likely to reach its objective in a few months. It seems an implementation of bitcoin UL will test the same principle far sooner than we thought.
So the potential for real democracy exists within the network. And we're already fast on our way to most of the community stop[p]ing using core as the reference client. Shit like what Peter pulled yesterday, I predict, will simply accelerate the process. So the solution is arriving, and it's a far better solution th[a]t it would be to, say, locking Peter out of the project. Thi[s] will be real democracy.
I also predict in a couple of years a lot of big mining groups/companies/whatever will have their own development teams making their internal software available for everyone else to use. This will create an at[]mosphere of true debate of real issues and how to solve them, and it will allow people (miners) to vote with their implementations on what the "real" bitcoin should be and how it should function.
Exciting times ahead, the wheels are already in motion for this future to come true. The situation is grave, I won't deny that, but I do believe it's very, very temporary.
redlightsaber
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfn6r4
Yeah I think the time has come to migrate away from "core". There's obviously fishiness going on with the censorship and lack of transparency.
loveforyouandme
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf6yi8
Vote with your feet: don't run Blockstream Core.
SatoshisDaughter
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfdc4h
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical discussion of Gavin's O(1) block propagation proposal

I think there isn't wide appreciation of how important Gavin's proposal is for the scalability of Bitcoin. It's the real deal, and will get us out of this sort of beta mode we've been in of a few transactions per second globally. I spent a few hours reviewing the papers referenced at the bottom of his excellent write-up and think I get it now.
If you already get it, then hang around and answer questions from me and others. If you don't get it yet, start by very carefully reading https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2.
The big idea is twofold: fix the miner's incentives to align better with users wanting transactions to clear, and eliminate the sending of redundant data in the newblock message when a block is solved to save bandwidth.
I'll use (arbitrarily) a goal of 1 million tx per block, which is just over 1000 TPS. This seems pretty achievable, without a lot of uncertainty. Really! Read on.
Today, a miner really wants to propagate a solved block as soon as possible to not jeopardize their 25 BTC reward. It's not the cpu cost for handling the transactions on the miner's side that's the problem, it's the sending of a larger newblock message around the network that just might cause her block to lose a race condition with another solution to the block.
So aside from transactions with fees of more than 0.0008 BTC that can make up for this penalty (https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482), or simply the goodwill of benevolent pools to process transactions, there is today an incentive for miners not to include transactions in a block. The problem is BTC price has grown so high so fast that 0.0008 BTC is about 50 cents, which is high for day-to-day transactions (and very high for third world transactions).
The whole idea centers around an old observation that since the network nodes (including miners) have already received transactions by the normal second-by-second operation of the p2p network, the newblock announcement message shouldn't have to repeat the transaction details. Instead, it can just tell people, hey, I approve these particular transactions called XYZ, and you can check me by taking your copy of those same transactions that you already have and running the hash to check that my header is correctly solved. Proof of work.
A basic way to do this would be to send around a Bloom filter in the newblock message. A receiving node would check all the messages they have, see which of them are in this solved block, and mark them out of their temporary memory pool. Using a BF calculator you can see that you need about 2MB in order to get an error rate of 10e-6 for 1 million entries. 2MB gives 16 million bits which is enough to almost always be able to tell if a tx that you know about is in the block or not.
There are two problems with this: there may be transactions in the solved block that you don't have, for whatever p2p network or policy reason. The BF can't tell you what those are. It can just tell you there were e.g. 1,000,000 tx in this solved block and you were able to find only 999,999 of them. The other glitch is that of those 999,999 it told you were there, a couple could be false positives. I think there are ways you could try to deal with this--send more types of request messages around the network to fill in your holes--but I'll dismiss this and flip back to Gavin's IBLT instead.
The IBLT works super well to mash a huge number of transactions together into one fixed-size (O(1)) data structure, to compare against another set of transactions that is really close, with just a few differences. The "few differences" part compared to the size of the IBLT is critical to this whole thing working. With too many differences, the decode just fails and the receiver wouldn't be able to understand this solved block.
Gavin suggests key size of 8B and data of 8B chunks. I don't understand his data size--there's a big key checksum you need in order to do full add and subtract of IBLTs (let's say 8B, although this might have to be 16B?) that I would rather amortize over more granular data chunks. The average tx is 250B anyway. So I'm going to discuss an 8B key and 64B data chunks. With a count field, this then gives 8 key + 64 data + 16 checksum + 4 count = 92B. Let's round to 100B per IBLT cell.
Let's say we want to fix our newblock message size to around 1MB, in order to not be too alarming for the change to this scheme from our existing 1MB block limit (that miners don't often fill anyway). This means we can have an IBLT with m=10K, or 10,000 cells, which with the 1.5d rule (see the papers) means we can tolerate about 6000 differences in cells, which because we are slicing transactions into multiple cells (4 on average), means we can handle about 1500 differences in transactions at the receiver vs the solver and have faith that we can decode the newblock message fully almost all the time (has to be some way to handle the occasional node that fails this and has to catch up).
So now the problem becomes, how can we define some conventions so that the different nodes can mostly agree on which of the transactions flying around the network for the past N (~10) minutes should be included in the solved block. If the solver gets it wrong, her block doesn't get accepted by the rest of the network. Strong incentive! If the receiver gets it wrong (although she can try multiple times with different sets), she can't track the rest of the network's progress.
This is the genius part around this proposal. If we define the convention so that the set of transactions to be included in a block is essentially all of them, then the miners are strongly incentivized, not just by tx fees, but by the block reward itself to include all those transactions that happened since the last block. It still allows them to make their own decisions, up to 1500 tx could be added where convention would say not to, or not put in where convention says to. This preserves the notion of tx-approval freedom in the network for miners, and some later miner will probably pick up those straggler tx.
I think it might be important to provide as many guidelines for the solver as possible to describe what is in her block, in specific terms as possible without actually having to give tx ids, so that the receivers in their attempt to decode this block can build up as similar an IBLT on their side using the same rules. Something like the tx fee range, some framing of what tx are in the early part and what tx are near the end (time range I mean). Side note: I guess if you allow a tx fee range in this set of parameters, then the solver could put it real high and send an empty block after all, which works against the incentive I mentioned above, so maybe that particular specification is not beneficial.
From http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23fc0/P2P2013_041.pdf for example, the propagation delay is about 30-40 seconds before almost all nodes have received any particular transaction, so it may be useful for the solver to include tx only up to a certain point in time, like 30 seconds ago. Any tx that is younger than this just waits until the next block, so it's not a big penalty. But some policy like this (and some way to communicate it in the absence of centralized time management among the nodes) will be important to keep the number of differences in the two sets small, below 1500 in my example. The receiver of the newblock message would know when trying to decode it, that they should build up an IBLT on their side also with tx only from up to 30 seconds ago.
I don't understand Gavin's requirement for canonical ordering. I see that it doesn't hurt, but I don't see the requirement for it. Can somebody elaborate? It seems that's his way to achieve the same framing that I am talking about in the previous paragraph, to obtain a minimum number of differences in the two sets. There is no need to clip the total number of tx in a block that I see, since you can keep shoving into the IBLT as much as you want, as long as the number of differences is bounded. So I don't see a canonical ordering being required for clipping the tx set. The XOR (or add-subtract) behavior of the IBLT doesn't require any ordering in the sets that I see, it's totally commutative. Maybe it's his way of allowing miners some control over what tx they approve, how many tx into this canonical order they want to get. But that would also allow them to send around solved empty blocks.
What is pretty neat about this from a consumer perspective is the tx fees could be driven real low, like down to the network propagation minimum which I think as of this spring per Mike Hearn is now 0.00001 BTC or 10 "bits" (1000 satoshis), half a US cent. Maybe that's a problem--the miners get the shaft without being able to bid on which transactions they approve. If they try to not approve too many tx their block won't be decoded by the rest of the network like all the non-mining nodes running the bitpay/coinbases of the world.
Edit: 10 bits is 1000 satoshis, not 10k satoshis
submitted by sandball to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Peter Todd's RBF (Replace-By-Fee) goes against one of the foundational principles of Birtcoin: IRREVOCABLE CASH TRANSACTIONS. RBF is the most radical, controversial change ever proposed to Bitcoin - and it is being forced on the community with no consensus, no debate and no testing. Why?

Many people are starting to raise serious questions and issues regarding Peter Todd's "Opt-In Full RBF", as summarized below:
(1) RBF violates one of the fundamental principles of the Bitcoin protocol: irrevocable cash transactions.
Interesting point!
Th[is] really is [a] drastically different vision of what Bitcoin according to the core dev team...
It would be nice [if] they [wrote their] own "white paper" so we know where they are going...
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxflx55
"From a usability / communications perspective, RBF is all wrong. When the main function of your technology is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING, you don't add an "opt-in" feature which ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING."
BeYourOwnBank
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/
(2) Who even requested RBF in the first place? What urgent existing "problem" is RBF intended to solve? If you claim to be a supporter of RBF, would you be willing to go on the record and comment here on how it would personally benefit you?
Still waiting for an answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/
Lots of back and forth bit no answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfjxp7
Intentionally doing zero-conf for any reason other than expediting a payment to the same recipients is nothing more than attempted fraud. There needs to be a good reason for enabling this, and last time I looked the case has not been made.
People with a black and white view of the world who believe "0 conf bad, 1 conf good" simply do not understand how bitcoin works. By its random nature, bitcoin never makes final commitment to a transaction. Even with six confirmations there is still a chance the transaction will be reversed. In other words, bitcoin finality is not black and white. Instead, there is a probability distribution of confidence that a transaction will not be reversed. Software changes that make it easier to defraud people who have been reasonably accepting 0 conf transactions are of highly questionable value, as they reduce the performance (by increasing delay for a given confidence).
If transactions with appropriate fees start failing to ever confirm because of "block size" issues, then bitcoin is simply broken and, if it can not be fixed bitcoin will end up as dead as a doornail.
tl121
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf9udt
Transactions spending the same utxo were (until now) not relayed (except by XT nodes). So it wasn't as simple as just sending a double spend, because the transaction wouldn't propagate. FSS-RBF seemed like a good option to get your tx unstuck if you paid too little. Pure RBF I'm not sure what the point of it is. What problem is it solving?
peoplma
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfdb37
When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes.
So the opposite is actually true. The community actively do not want this change. Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this major change to the protocol?
yeeha4
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfbvvn
yeehaw4: "When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes." / pizzaface18: "Peter ... tried to push a change that will cripple some use cases of Bitcoin."
BeYourOwnBank
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/
(3) RBF breaks zero-conf. Satoshi supported zero-conf. Were any actual merchants who have figured out pragmatic business approaches using zero-conf even consulted on this radical, controversial change?
My business accepts bitcoin and helps people with minor cash transfers and purchases. Fraud has NEVER been an issue as long as the transactions have been broadcast on the blockchain with appropriate fees. We usually send people their cash as soon as the transaction is broadcast.
Now we have to wait 10 minutes to avoid getting cheated out of hundreds of dollars, vastly increasing the service cost of accepting bitcoin. And we have to tell customers we promote bitcoin to that they are likely to be cheated if they don't wait 10 minutes while buying their bitcoin. It is such a spectacularly stupid thing to do, adding uncertainty and greater potential for fraud at every link of the transaction chain. Thanks a lot, Peter.
trevelyan22
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfjn78
Jeez, we need to give this "zero-conf was never safe" meme a rest already. Cash was also "never safe", but it's widely used because it works reasonably well in the context it's used. These people would probably advocate for a cashless society as well.
imaginary_username
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfisut
I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.
The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.
A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1 0
4 1
16 4
64 16
80% 20%
So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.
The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.
— satoshi
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819
"RBF is agaisnt Satoshi's Vision. Peter Todd and others attacking Satoshi's vision again, while Gavin Andresen upholds his original vision steadfastly."
Plive
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ukc52/rbf_is_agaisnt_satoshis_vision_peter_todd_and/
Zero conf was always dangerous, true, but the attacker is rolling a dice with a double spend. And it is detectable because you have to put your double spend transaction on the network within the transaction propagation time (which is measured in seconds). That means in the shop, while the attacker is buying the newspaper, the merchant can get an alert from their payment processor saying "this transaction has a double spend attempt". Wrestling them to the ground is an option. Stealing has to be done in person... No different then from just shop lifting. The attacker takes their chance that the stealing transaction won't be the one that is mined.
With rbf, the attacker has up to the next block time to decide to release their double spend transaction. That means the attacker can be out of the shop and ten minutes away by car before the merchant gets the double spend warning from their payment processor. Stealing is not in person and success is guaranteed by the network.
Conclusion: every merchant and every payment processor will simply refuse to accept any rbf opt in transaction. That opt in might as well be a flag that says "enable stealing from you with this transaction"... Erm no thanks.
There might be a small window while wallet software is updated, but after that this " feature " will go dark. Nobody is going to accept a cheque signed "mickey mouse", and nobody is going to accept a transaction marked rbf.
Strangely, that means all this fuss about it getting merged is moot. It will inevitably not be used.
kingofthejaffacakes
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfkkr3
(4) What new problems could RBF create?
This opens up a new kind of vandalism that will ensure that no wallets use this feature.
The way it works is that if you make a transaction, and then double spend the transaction with a higher fee, the one with the higher fee will take priority.
DeftNerd
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfhd0m
RBF as released is a really, really stupid policy change that will open up Bitcoin to blackmail and wholesale theft of transactions.
Bitcoin XT can easily be better than the confused, agenda-ridden rubbish being released by Blockstream and their fellow-travellers.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkeah
This is truly unprecedented. There is MAJOR MONEY and MAJOR FORCES trying to destroy Bitcoin right now. We are witnessing history here. This might completely destroy the Bitcoin experiment
scotty321
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf53xn
I [too am] curious as to why Todd has been pushing that hard for RBF. People can double-spend if they really want to already, without any help from BS implementation.
thaolx
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf4t8l
(5) RBF apologists such as eragmus have been trying to placate objections by repeatedly emphasizing that this version of RBF is ok, saying that this is only "Opt-In (Full) RBF". But does the "opt-in" nature of this particular implementation of RBF really mitigate its potential problems?
"opt-in" is a bit of a red-herring.
As I understand: say I'm a vendor who doesn't want to accept RBF transactions. So I don't opt-in. I'm still stuck accepting RBF transactions because the sender, not the receiver, has the control.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxflg13
bitcoin is a push system.
how do I opt-out of a transaction generated and confirmed entirely outside my control?
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxflhki
You are right you cannot opt-out.. You will have to wait ten minutes if you have recived a RBF Tx..
The user experience doesn't seem to be a priority for the core dev team...
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxfls9o
It's opt-in in theory, but that means everyone in the community who writes software which deals with transactions now has to develop code to deal with the ramifications.
discoltk
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfec1o
Yes it is opt-in, which means I have to anticipate ... congestion beforehand to use it. This has caused me troubles recently. Normally I use low-fee mode to transact and switch mode when the network is congested. A few times either I did not know about the congestion or forgot to switch mode and my txn got stuck for 12-48h. So for me this opt-in does nothing of help. If I was conscious about the congestion I would have switch to high-fee mode, no RBF needed.
...Or I have to enabled RBF for all my txns. Then there's problem of receivers have to all upgrade their wallet after the wallet devs choose to implement it. And just to add one more major complication when consider 0-conf.
thaolx
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfbbn6
What is the point of opt in rbf if it's not a good way to pay lower miner fees? According to nullc, if you guess too low then you end up paying for two transactions
specialenmity
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfoi99
(6) Who would benefit from RBF?
"Hopefully this will give Bitcoin payment processors a financial incentive to support Lightning Network development."
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/
It seems to me like RBF is addressing a problem (delays due to too-low fees) which would not exist if we had larger blocks. It seems fishy to make this and lightning networks to solve the problem when there's a much simpler solution in plain view.
We should set the bar for deceit and mischief unusually high on this one bc there is so much at stake, an entire banking empire.
ganesha1024
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfde8f
RBF seems at best to be a duct-tape solution to a problem caused by not raising the block size. in the process it kills zero conf (more or less).
rglfnt
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/cxfkqoh
PT [Peter Todd] is part of a group of devs who propose to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up transaction fees.
IOW [In other words], he's a glorified central planner.
A free market moves around such engineered scarcity. See also: the music business.
tl;dr stop running core.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujm35/uyeehaw4_when_f2pool_implemented_rbf_at_the/cxfljrk
This maybe a needed feature if Bitcoin get stuck with 1MB..
You might need to jack-up the fee several time to get your fees in a blocks in the future..
It seems that 1MB crrippecoin is really part of their vision.
Ant-n
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujj1s/serious_gametheory_question_if_youre_a_miner_and/cxfluyt
RBF makes sense in a world where blocks are small and always full.
It creates a volatile transaction pricing market where bidders try to outbid each other for the limited space in the current block of txns.
It serves the dual goals of limiting transactions and maximizing miner revenue resulting from the artificial scarcity being imposed by the block size limit.
The unfortunate side effect is that day to day P2P transactions on the Bitcoin network will become relatively expensive and will be forced onto another layer, or coin.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfksk7
RBF offers nothing in a world where there is always a little extra space in the block for the next transaction. It only makes sense in a world where blocks are full.
tsontar
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxflcn1
Unless your goal is to harm bitcoin.
Anen-o-me
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxflljw
(7) RBF violates two common-sense principles:
- "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid);
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
To say it a bit harsher but IMO warranted: P. Todd seems to be busy inventing useless crap and making things complicated for wallet devs...
awemany
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfkwvi
(8) Why is the less-safe version of RBF the one being released ("Full") rather than the "safe(r)" version (FSS - First-Seen Safe)?
Peter Todd had proposed two different versions of RBF: "Full" vs "FSS" (First-Seen Safe).
"Full" is the more dangerous version, because it allows general double-spending (I can't even believe we're even saying things like "allows general double-spending" - but that's the kind of crap Peter Todd is trying to foist on us).
"FSS" is supposedly a bit "safer", because is only allows double-spending a transaction with the same output.
What's being released now is "Opt-In Full RBF".
First-seen-safe restricts replace-by-fee to only replacing transactions with the same output (prevents double spending).
The reason this feature is being added is they see Bitcoin as a settlement network, so when there's a backlog users should be able to replace their transaction with a higher-fee one so it's included. It's to deal with the cripplingly low blocksizes.
Someone should just implement and merge first-seen-safe, since that's much more non-controversial. Keeps 0-confs safe(r) while enabling re-submitting transactions.
tytyty_
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxff3ej
I would have preferred first-seen-safe RBF, certainly. It can be a useful tool to just bump the transaction fee on an existing transaction.
coinaday
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf5eno
Ok, so if the only benefit of RBF is to unstick stuck transactions by increasing the fee; why did you use "Full RBF" instead of "FSS RBF"? Full RBF allows the sender to increase the fee and change who the receiver is. FSS (First-Seen-Safe) RBF only allows the sender to increase the fee, but does not allow the sender to change who the receiver is.
Tldr: FSS RBF should be enough to enable your wanted benefit of being able to resend stuck transactions by increasing their fee, but you chose Full RBF anyway. Why?
todu
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfm5qb
The benefit of opt-in RBF:
Now, when a transaction is not going through because fee was accidentally made too low or if there is a spam attack on the network, a user can "un-stuck" his/her transaction by re-sending it with a higher fee. No more being held to the mercy of miners maybe confirming your transaction, or not. The user gets some power back.
If this was the actual problem at hand, why not restrict the RBF to only increasing the fee, but not changing the output addresses.
RBF in it's current form is nothing but a tool to facilitate double spending. That is, it lowers the bar for default nodes to assist facilitating double spending. Which is VERY BAD for Bitcoin, imho.
Serisouly, I don't know what's gotten into those devs ACK'ing this decrease in Bitcoin's trustwortiness.
Kazimir82
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfn295
(9) Peter Todd has a track record of trying to break features which aren't perfect - even when real-world users find those features "good enough" to use in practice. Do you support Peter Todd's perfectionist and vandalist approach over the pragmatist "good-enough" approach, and if so, why or why not?
Destroying something just because it isn't perfect is stupid. By that logic we should even kill Bitcoin itself.
kraml
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfcmc7
How did a troll like peter todd get in control of bitcoin? This is fucking unbelievable.
Vibr8gKiwi
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/cxfk89n
(10) Could the "game theory" on RBF backfire, and end up damaging Bitcoin?
And what if some/all miners simply hold RBF-enabled transactions into a separate pool and extract maximum value per transaction i.e. wait until senders cough up more & more ...
A very dangerous change that will actively encourage miners to collaborate on extracting higher fees or even extorting senders trying to 'fix' their transactions.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkozk
Peter Todd has a history of loving Game Theory, but he hasn't really applied those principals to the technological changes he's unilaterally making.
I don't understand how so many people could have been driven away or access removed so now he's able to make these changes despite community outcry.
DeftNerd
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uii16/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfkyok
A miner could simply separate all RBF-enabled TX into a separate list and wait for higher and higher fees to be paid. It's kind of like putting a "Take my money, Pls!!!" sign on your forehead and and going shopping.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfkha2
opens door for collusion and possibly extortion ... sender has flagged willingness to pay more.
laisee
https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uixix/from_a_usability_communications_perspective_rbf/cxfl64y
(11) RBF is a controversial, radical change to the Bitcoin protocol. Why has Peter Todd been allowed to force this on our community with no debate, no consensus and no testing?
It's not uncontroversial. There is clearly controversy. You can say the concerns are trumped up, invalid. But if the argument against even discussing XT is that the issue is controversial, the easy ACK'ing of this major change strikes many as hypocritical.
There is not zero impact. Someone WILL be double spent as a result of this. You may blame that person for accepting a transaction they shouldn't, or using a wallet that neglected to update to notify them that their transaction was reversible. But it cannot be said that no damage will result due to this change.
And in my view most importantly, RBF is a cornerstone in supporting those who believe that we need to keep small blocks. The purpose for this is to enable a more dynamic fee market to develop. I fear this is a step in the direction of a slippery slope.
(12) How does the new RBF feature activate?
Does anyone know how RBF activates? I mean if wallets are not upgraded this could be very dangerous for users. Because even if its opt-in this could kill zero confirmation for good.
seweso
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf3ui0
(13) PT on TP: Peter Todd fulfills the toilet-paper prophecy! [comic]
raisethelimit
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujjzn/pt_on_tp_peter_todd_fulfills_the_toiletpape
(14) RBF: A Counter-Argument - by Mike Hearn
https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d
(15) If you're against RBF, what can you do?
the solution to all this, is actually rather simple. Take the power away from these people. Due to the nature of bitcoin, we've always had that power. There never was a need for an "official" or "reference" implementation of the software. For a few years it was simply the most convenient, the mo[s]t efficient, and the best way to work out all the initial kinks bitcoin had. It was also a sort of restricted field in that (obviously) there were few people in the world who truly understood to the degree required to make a) design change proposals, and b) code for them (and note that while up until now this has been the case, it's not necessary for these 2 roles to be carried out by the same people). The last few months' debates over the blocksize limit have shown and educated thst a lot of people now truly understand what's what. And what's more one of the original core-devs (Gavin), already gave us the gift of proving in the real world that democracy in bitcoin can truly exist via voting with the software one (or miners) runs, without meaning to.
BitcoinXT was a huge gift to the community, and it's likely to reach its objective in a few months. It seems an implementation of bitcoin UL will test the same principle far sooner than we thought.
So the potential for real democracy exists within the network. And we're already fast on our way to most of the community stop[p]ing using core as the reference client. Shit like what Peter pulled yesterday, I predict, will simply accelerate the process. So the solution is arriving, and it's a far better solution th[a]t it would be to, say, locking Peter out of the project. Thi[s] will be real democracy.
I also predict in a couple of years a lot of big mining groups/companies/whatever will have their own development teams making their internal software available for everyone else to use. This will create an at[]mosphere of true debate of real issues and how to solve them, and it will allow people (miners) to vote with their implementations on what the "real" bitcoin should be and how it should function.
Exciting times ahead, the wheels are already in motion for this future to come true. The situation is grave, I won't deny that, but I do believe it's very, very temporary.
redlightsaber
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxfn6r4
Yeah I think the time has come to migrate away from "core". There's obviously fishiness going on with the censorship and lack of transparency.
loveforyouandme
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uighb/on_black_friday_with_9000_transactions_backlogged/cxf6yi8
Vote with your feet: don't run Blockstream Core.
SatoshisDaughter
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ujc4m/consensus_jgarzik_rbf_would_be_antisocial_on_the/cxfdc4h
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to btc [link] [comments]

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

Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Block Size Increase Hard Fork
~ tylev
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kpgxt/antpool_will_not_run_segwit_without_block_size/
So, this is exactly the situation the Classic code was meant to prevent.
Fixing the issue before it becomes an issue. Classic was correct and full blocks are the largest problem that Bitcoin faces.
~ Annapurna317
Leaders of Core had a childish little selfish tantrum about wanting to work on what cool stuff they wanted to build and wouldn't listen.
It would have been relatively safe and easy to introduce the 2mb HF if it was progressed collectively and collaboratively with good will by all parties.
All of this could have been avoided long ago. There is one person who is very influential who we know to be adamant about blocks being confined to 1mb.
~ papabitcoin
Hardfork in July 2017 will be too late.
If you read the statement by Peter "I don't have a clue about economics" Todd you might start to puke.
“Unfortunately Bitcoin simply doesn't scale well" How about you start to tell what exactly doesn't scale you fuckhead?
P.S.: The blockchain is growing indefinitely, if you don't like that fact you should choose something else than cryptocurrencies or come up with a better way.
~ satoshis_sockpuppet
This is classic narrowmindedness on PT's part.
He'd also be the first one to say that the internet is not sustainable as it produces exponentially more and more data.
These guys are fucking idiots and really have no idea what they are talking about, all they see is "BLOAT!" and "TOO BIG FOR CURRENT NODES!" then react accordingly without even thinking about the fact that Bitcoin's usefulness mitigates these limiting factors almost entirely.
~ ferretinjapan
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
Gavin Andresen: Bitcoin Protocol Role Models
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l0ugy/gavin_andresen_bitcoin_protocol_role_models/
http://gavinandresen.ninja/bitcoin-protocol-role-models
There are limits on routing table sizes, but they are not top-down-specified-in-a-standards-document protocol limits.
They are organic limits that arise from whatever hardware is available and from the (sometimes very contentious!) interaction of the engineers keeping the Internet backbone up and running.
~ Gavin
We've long established that the 1mb limit (or their refusal to remove it) has absolutely nothing to do with technical concerns.
It's a political matter, whose raison d'être we can only infer.
Time to stop the bullshit and the [s]quabbling. Chinese miners wake up! Time to try something new. It quite literally can't be worse than what's going on right now.
~ redlightsaber
Fred Ehrsam / Coinbase basically says that Ethereum is the future of cryptocurrency
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kvqwj/fred_ehrsam_coinbase_basically_says_that_ethereum/
https://medium.com/the-coinbase-blog/ethereum-is-the-forefront-of-digital-currency-5300298f6c75#.4wqiu5njb
Bitcoin has become embroiled in debate over the block size - an important topic for the health of the network, but not something that should halt progress in a young and rapidly developing field.
The developer community in Bitcoin feels fairly dormant. Bitcoin never really made it past the stage of simple wallets and exchanges.
Bitcoin’s “leadership” is ... toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of Core developers, recently referred to other Core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well-meaning dips***s.”
~ huntingisland
This was a good sobering read.
It is also worth noting that Coinbase was left with little choice but to broaden its offerings given the current state of Bitcoin usability ...
When BS hijacked BTC away from being money, it screwed a lot of business and usage plans. ...
Praise be to the free market and the market place of ideas.
~ veintiuno
REPOST from 12/2015: "If there are only 20 seats on the bus and 25 people that want to ride, there is no ticket price where everyone gets a seat. Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they are fixed by adding seats, which in this case means raising the blocksize cap."Vibr8gKiwi
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kfqyj/repost_from_122015_if_there_are_only_20_seats_on/
By the way, this shows that a certain other trending OP from today:
Why all the disinformation? Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees. Currently $0.05
...is total bullshit.
But that other OP was posted in an echo-chamber of censorship (r\bitcoin).
That is dangerous (for them), because it allows them to enjoy the illusion that they are right - when in reality, they are wrong, because they are ignoring the fact that full blocks DO matter: because the overflow goes elsewhere (into fiat, into alts, etc.).
~ ydtm
We just got Blockstreamed! (Coinbase rebranding away from BTC)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k455s/we_just_got_blockstreamed_coinbase_rebranding/
Coinbase Exchange to Rebrand Following Ethereum Trading Launch
http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-exchange-rebrand-ethereum-trading/
Bitcoin exchange and wallet service Coinbase is adding support for ether, the native cryptocurrency of the Ethereum network. ...
This is quite significant. I would interpret this as a loss of confidence in Blockstream to provide what customers need in a timely manner.
While Blockstream wastes time figuring out how to stuff all the world's transaction data into their beloved tiny blocks, the market will move on to solutions that can actually scale and can scale NOW.
Blockstream: The world will not wait for you.
~ objectivist72
Gavin finally speaks - they are "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"
~ aquentin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4koywo/gavin_finally_speaks_they_are_rearranging_the/
Gavin could post that the sky is blue and it would generate a shitstorm of controversy.
~ borg
Opinions on Gavin over there are variously:
1 - Why aren't you coding for Core?
2 - Which agency do you work for?
3 - Haha classic suxxor
A very telling series of questions that the false agenda has fermented and sunk in.
~ nanoakron
Core has solved the scalability issue!
By keeping the blocksize at 1MB they have motivated users to look to other blockchains. Problem solved!
~ solled
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k5k80/core_has_solved_the_scalability_issue/
It's actually kind of brilliant !
Think about it: no need for super dangerous hard forks, and not even soft forks. No new code needed, no testing, nothing.
All it took was 2-3 years of endless stalling, organizing some fake conventions, a bit of character assassination and demonization here and there, nothing major. Done.
It was actually very well-thought-out. Congratulations and hat off to nullc adam3us and all their drones.
~ realistbtc
Bitcoin is a giant, global "Consensus-tron" based on a fundamental meta-rule: "51% Consensus based on Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Blockstream/Core is trying change this meta-rule, to make it "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") - the MOST CONTENTIOUS change conceivable in Bitcoin
The main characteristic of Bitcoin is that it is basically a kind of global "consensus-producing machine" or "Consensus-tron" - which runs based on a fundamental meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" - also called "Nakamoto Consensus".
Recently, Blockstream has started trying to quietly change this fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin based on "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus").
Instead, they have proposed a totally different meta-rule based on "95% Consensus" - which they like to call "Strong Consensus", but a better name would probably be "Extreme Consensus", to show what an extreme change it would be.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l45p1/bitcoin_is_a_giant_global_consensustron_based_on/
Every binary vote has an opposite side. 95% consensus is actually 5% consensus of the opposing team. Would you like a 5% consensus system? No? Then you wouldn't like a 95% consensus system.
That's why 50% is the only valid threshold -- because it's the only one that makes both sides equal.
~ kingofthejaffacakes
The only real threshold is 51%.
~ Ant-n
Continuing on this road , soon Coinbase and Circle will probably allow to send and receive Ether, and Coinbase and Bitpay will offer the option to pay in Ether. At that point Gregonomic fee pressure will go out of the window.
The first mover led the ground work, but it's not an exclusive advantage.
Bitcoin needs to wake up from the Blockstream-induced coma !!!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8c8g/continuing_on_this_road_soon_coinbase_and_circle/
This is so painfully obvious. The users do not want a "fee market". Blockstream is absolutely hell-bent on giving us one, despite there being no need for a "fee market" at this point in time. Therefore the free market will do its job and provide an alternative to Bitcoin, and the users will move to the alternative where they will get what they actually want.
~ objectivist72
Bitcoin users are speaking out, and they want bigger blocks. Compare these 2 OPs: r\bitcoin: "Full blocks DO NOT matter, what matters is transaction fees" (100 upvotes) vs btc: "Capacity problems can't be fixed with a 'fee market'; they can only be fixed by raising the blocksize cap" (200 upvotes)
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kjxrb/bitcoin_users_are_speaking_out_and_they_want/
The block size issue has turned me off to bitcoin entirely, I no longer evangelize, no longer buy or use them. Blockstream has destroyed all the good-will I had for Bitcoin.
Once the block sizes are larger, and continue rising with use, I'll be interested again. until then, Bitcoin can wallow in the fail
~ jmdugan
Maxwell the vandal calls Adam, Luke, and Peter Todd dipshits
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8rsa/maxwell_the_vandal_calls_adam_luke_and_peter_todd/
Peak idiocy imminent @Blockstream-Core? Or not yet?
~ Shock_The_Stream
Just to confirm, that is the CTO of Blockstream calling the President of Blockstream a "dipshit" on a public forum.
~ Leithm
Andreas "I believe this is called a "Mexican Standoff". No segwit no HF. No HF, no segwit. Compromise time."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kq2dm/andreas_i_believe_this_is_called_a_mexican/
2mb WAS the compromise FFS.
~ tailsta
I thought 8MB was the compromise.
~ dskloet
Actually 20MB was the compromise. The original plan was to just remove the cap and let miners implement their own norms.
~ ForkiusMaximus
Damn fucking straight, the larger block side has been compromising for over a year and they have refused to compromise from day one.
Now is not the time to compromise, now is the time to sweep them aside as they have brought nothing to the table.
These devs shouldn't even be given the time of day considering their open contempt for larger blocks and the miners should be finding devs that will give them what they need, rather than trying to negotiate with asshats that refuse to negotiate.
~ ferretinjapan
"It's truly funny how blockstream are dead against 2mb of block data using traditional transactions along with linear signature validation... but blindly think that 2.85mb of segwit + confidential payment codes + other features is acceptable."
And also funny that their roadmap allows for 5.7mb blocks when blockstream decide its ok for the hard fork.. yet they cant explain what network bandwidth restrictions are currently preventing 2mb now but weirdly and suddenly not an issue for 5.7mb next year...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kn960/its_truly_funny_how_blockstream_are_dead_against/
It's a matter of ego and politics. From a computer science standpoint, Adam Back wanted the 2-4-8 mb scaling originally, which would have been completely safe (and smart).
Segwit is required for the Lightning Network and some other things Blockstream wants to centralize and profit from.
No better way to get something you need in there than making it necessary for scaling and saying it's the best solution.
Segwit is a backwards approach compared to the easier and cleaner solution of increasing the blocksize
~ Annapurna317
maaku7: "I don't know anyone who is actually working on a hard fork right now (although I'm sure someone is). Keep in mind very few core developers were at the HK meeting and that 'agreement' is mostly not acceptable to those who were not there."
The Hongkong Farce. Great job Core and Chinese/Georgian 'miners'!
~ Shock_The_Stream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k74cmaaku7_i_dont_know_anyone_who_is_actually_working/
HF will never happen unless miners switch client. The problem is miners still trust Adam & Co.
The day Mike Hearn left, he told me: "Both Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell are extremely skilled manipulators, timewasters and both of them have been caught lying red handed. I strongly suggest you just ignore both of them. I do not plan to take part in Bitcoin related discussions further".
From my experience, Adam will tell you whatever you want to hear, but do something different behind your back.
Just look at his presentations he gave to the miners and others, they are full of lies and inaccuracies. This isn't rocket science.
I just can't understand why people keep buying bullshit from a guy who's not even a core dev, but president of a company that only benefits from making sure Bitcoin itself is crippled so people are forced offchain.
~ olivierjanss
That was known opinion by Mark [Friedenbach, maaku7].
He said right after HK that it is not Core's agreement, that individual developers there were not representatives for Core.
And that the HF block limit increase is not an option.
I don't know what are miners still expecting and waiting for.
~ r1q2
Is this information being sent to the Chinese bitcoin community?
Who is doing that?
How does information like this not immediately change the ballgame?
~ 8yo90
There's more than enough developer talent in the Bitcoin space to ensure a hard fork comes off successfully, but the Core developers have divided the community with lies to make it more difficult to pull off. Instead of helping achieve it, they have created community-wide FUD.
~ Reddit_My_Life_Away
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ku44w/theres_more_than_enough_developer_talent_in_the/
My opinion is that we can't have Blockstream at all involved in Bitcoin any longer.
If you keep them involved, even after a blocksize increase, we will suffer in the future.
Similar to malware, you have to remove it.
~ mti985
This is the correct way to decide "maximum blocksize"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kwntk/this_is_the_correct_way_to_decide_maximum/
https://i.imgur.com/UTUMSwzl.png
I'm very happy to see you researching Bitcoin Unlimited!
~ Peter__R
Mike Hearn: Bitcoin’s “Young, Unripened Democracy” Suffers Under Authoritarian Developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8o7x/mike_hearn_bitcoins_young_unripened_democracy/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mike-hearn-bitcoin-democracy/
Hearn describes in the interview how people in the developer scene do not truly want the cryptocurrency to be decentralized.
“They say they want so, but that’s not what they want. Bitcoin is a young, unripened Democracy, in which a group of developers hold the power. And this group is desperately trying to prevent a real vote on the future of Bitcoin.”
...
“[They] won’t vote against Core, because [they’ve] been told voting is dangerous,” Hearn elucidates. “The miners are not per se against proposals to increase the capacity, such as something like Bitcoin Classic wants. The miners refuse to vote. At this point, some developers, including myself, lost interest, because we realized it no longer was a debate about the block size. Suddenly it was trying to convince Chinese people democracy is a good thing.”
~ Mike Hearn
Sadly, he sounds like the voice of reason in a world gone mad.
~ realistbtc
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch.
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/fa44a78d7d6f6a2e0536e611e43093a8/tumblr_inline_mjh5diUr7t1qz4rgp.jpg
PSA: when someone asks for info about a transaction getting stuck, stop saying that the fee was too low or his wallet did something wrong. The correct answer is that currently Bitcoin is broken.
~ realistbtc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k44cf/psa_when_someone_ask_for_info_about_a_transaction/
Artificial capacity restraint by Core devs is the correct answer.
~ flamingboard
This is so true.
I mean, look at the logic.
If $0.01 is not enough, and everyone sets it at $1.00, then it is still not enough because the number of transactions at the 'higher' price is still too many and blocks are still full with transactions being ignored.
~ canadiandev
This is why I think Blockstream's mission is to hurt bitcoin.
I cannot believe that they genuinely can be so stupid to ignore this aspect.
~ usrn
The core devs (Wladimir and Maxwell) do not care about the price of bitcoin. They do not care to give investors a clear indication of what capacity will be in the near or mid future. This is contrary to the fact that everything else is known. Roger Ver is right.
Investors (Hodlers) are a large part of what makes bitcoin valuable. Without a clear indication of what capacity is going to be in the future there is no clear indication of what the worth of Bitcoin actually is.
~ specialenmity
Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin.
Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin.
~ Roger Ver / ~ MemoryDealers
Gregory Maxwell (nullc) & /bitcoin have deleted my posts
They have also banned me from any discussion on their subreddit.
I was simply posting that Gregory Maxwell (nullc) is lying when he says "the Chinese Bitcoin community stands behind us".
This is false, they do not.
In fact, a respected member from the Chinese Bitcoin community said this: "Do you know that what you are doing is harming bitcoin by spreading misinformation? I'm from China. I can just tell you the common sense in the Chinese Community of Bitcoin. No one likes BlockStream now! People in China all know that it is Greg Maxwell who is blocking bitcoin by limiting block size. I dare say, your company can never develop any business in China in the future."
~ taxed4ever
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l6p57/gregory_maxwell_nullc_rbitcoin_have_deleted_my/
Jihan of Antpool, great response in regards to Chinese Bitcoin discussion on /bitcoin I was banned from:
Maxwell,
When you talking about "in fact", it smells like no fact. You are spreading very serious rumors about the mining network situation. Antpool has been connected to Relay Network and also testing a new network called Falcon after being invited. The total network orphan rate has been keeping lower and lower in the past months, which is an evidence that the network is working in a much better situation. Antpool in the past April have only 1 orphaned block, which is an evidence that there is no selfish mining situation - a selfish mining attack will generate higher orphan rate on both competitors and attackers. On the https://poolbench.antminer.link/, you can find ... the performance of a mining pool. (This is a third party site, this is fact.)
Antpool and other mining pools had made the position clear as water since in the Hong Kong meeting, that SegWit+HF [is] coming as package. If you just realized right now, ... the communication problem inside Core, you cannot blame anyone else. We will not activ[ate] the SegWit until seeing the promised (by "individuals" yes I know Maxwell could not be represented) HF code being released in Bitcoin Core. If everything is progressed according the HK Consensus, the SegWit will not be stalled. The SegWit as a very th[o]rough improvement/change [and] will need to be carefully tested and reviewed after its release, at least for several months. During which time the HF can be proposed, defined, implemented and released. While the max blocksize limit lifting can be activated later, but as the code is already contained in the release, most of the economic nodes in the network will be compatible with the coming blocksize bumping up.
Bitcoin is a worldwide economy infrastructure and it requires working together and moving forward. Greg, you need to have some self control from talking like a human flesh fascist propaganda machine, trying to attack anyone who disagree with you.
Please don't tag those concerns as "pro-altcoin". (Another evidence of your problematic speaking style.) The concerns are genuine concerns. Some of the concerns coming from people who hold very large stake of Bitcoin since early time. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency in the town. I also see some small blockers are very active in the competing coin development. You cannot use this methods to distinguish people at all. Then stop judging people's intention and unrelated behavior but focus on the problem itself.
The only thing I have to add is that you can't wait for Mr. Maxwell and his company to deliver their promise. It is a toxic arrangement and we need to focus on looking past them, repairing the damage and working towards the future. When there are too many lies and scandal involved, you have to cut your losses and walk away. Investors around the world will be confident once we start making firm moves. Positive press from Forbes will help repair confidence with investors.
Either way, thank you!
We are all committed to working together.
~ taxed4ever
This is fine.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kqdh8/this_is_fine/
http://imgur.com/KdfJI2G
~ bitkong-me
Picture characterizing the situation very well!
~ Amichateur
In successful open-source software projects, the community should drive the code - not the other way around. Projects fail when "dead scripture" gets prioritized over "common sense". (Another excruciating analysis of Core/Blockstream's pathological fetishizing of a temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge)
~ ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8kda/in_successful_opensource_software_projects_the/
ashmoran explains why Blockstream's behavior flies in the face of the Agile Manifesto, a guide that is widely applicable to open-source software development:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4asyc9/collaboration_requires_communication/d13av94?context=2
The essence of Gavin's point reminded me of the things the Agile Manifesto was meant to address. ...
The behaviour of Blockstream is like the most pathological cases of capital-E Enterprise software development I've seen.
~ BobsBurgers4Bitcoin
Samsung Mow: "@austinhill @Blockstream Now it's time to see if Greg Maxwell is part of the solution or the problem."
~ Egon_1
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/
Not enough popcorn in the world for this.
~ kanaarrt
Samson Mow is part of the problem.
~ Domrada
Chairman Mow can be a very annoying creature
~ hiddensphinx
He makes bad choices, he's unprofessional, he's cost us money, the list goes on and on.
~ mfkusa
Trouble on the home front.
I don't think Greg has it in him to "give in"; he has to be "right" at all costs.
~ buddhamangler
This is what I'm hoping, as, "giving in" will mean he'll walk away from Bitcoin.
~ ferretinjapan
Why is it not recognized that ANY block size limit is a hack on a hack
Bitcoin will NOT work right until the size limit hack is removed entirely. The limit is being leveraged to justify many actions. All of which would be moot if the limit did not exist.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kbcaa/why_is_it_not_recognized_that_any_block_size/
You're absolutely right. Miners have always regulated the size of their own blocks and still do.
We see it in the form of excluding zero-fee transactions, SPV mining, spam filtering, etc.
They will do the same without a limit.
All in the name of maintaining profitability.
~ cypherdoc2
It's true that almost every single argument Core makes for limiting the blocksize, if correct, should be what the miners/investors would do anyway if left to their own devices.
~ ForkiusMaximus
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Facebook Libra: Good or Bad for Bitcoin? BITCOIN MANIPULATION BY CME?! STOLEN BITCOIN DUMPED! BITCOIN DUMP PRICE PREDICTION! BTC & ETH TA BITCOIN CONFIRMED BEARISH AGAIN?! Prepare! LIVE Crypto Analysis TA & BTC Cryptocurrency Price News BITCOIN BREAK WITHIN 72 HOURS?! WOW!!! LIVE Crypto Analysis TA & BTC Cryptocurrency Price News Bitcoin 80% Crash after the Halving!

Mike Hearn Bitcoin 2017 Bitcoin . Mike Hearn Bitcoin 2017 . Dec 14, 2017 DTN Staff. twitter. pinterest. google plus. facebook. The Great Bitcoin Scaling Debateatimeline ... Last week a former Bitcoin developer Mark Hearn stated in his blog that Bitcoin is broken.This resulted in a $80 price drop. He predicts a downtrend from now on. Let’s have a look at if this is true and whether we should keep hold of our coins or start selling in panic. after Mike Hearn, one of the most visible Bitcoin lead developers, announced on the 14th of January, 2015 that he had decided to throw in the towel and walked away for good. === As a matter of fact, thanks to his departure, for the first time in 2016, the Bitcoin price crossed the $400 mark on its way down. Bitcoin Evolution erfahrungen 2020 Bitcoin Price Prediction 2020: Was ist die Bitcoin Future? Wenn die Menschen das Vertrauen in den Euro verlieren, wird eine 100-Euro-Rechnung letztendlich nur noch Papier sein. Sie müssen diese Krypto dann an eine Börse wie Coinbase senden, um sie in USD einzulösen. Um Bitcoins zu verdienen, müssen Sie zwei Bedingungen erfüllen. Bitcoin-Berater sind auch ... Mark Hearn said he was going to leave the digital currency ecosystem and sold all the coins he had. This statement by Mike Hearn caused massive panic among cryptocurrency users and the price of Bitcoin dropped to $360. Thus, in January, we saw the Bitcoin price drop by $90 per coin. By the end of January the price of Bitcoin has risen to $382. Bitcoin price chart, January-April 2016: I should ...

[index] [29548] [41752] [22866] [43342] [37079] [36486] [22581] [39344] [5540] [21132]

Facebook Libra: Good or Bad for Bitcoin?

Published on Mar 8, 2020. BITCOIN MANIPULATION BY CME?! INSTITUTIONAL TRADERS ARE DUMPING BITCOIN BUT IT LOOKS FISHY! Should you sell your bitcoin? What is happening to bitcoin price? Why is ... After the first Bitcoin Halving in November 2012 the price of Bitcoin crashed more than 80% a couple months later. How likely is such a Bitcoin dump after th... 🔴 Bitcoin & Stocks LIVE : BTC On the Brink Of A Breakout! 🔴 Ep. 918 Crypto Technical Analysis Mitch Ray 599 watching Live now 3 Simple Ways To Use Candlestick Patterns In Trading ... This video represent history of BTC-USD exchange rate until 2019.07.11 Bitcoin price is like crazy right now. How much will rising up? and, How much will fal... Bitcoin Live Btc Price Liquidation Watch 24/7 Bull vs Bear Pump or Dump Bitcoin Currency Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. It is a decentralized digital currency without a central bank or single ...

#