Peter Rizun Says 'Let's Wait' on Bitcoin ABC's November ...
Peter Rizun Says 'Let's Wait' on Bitcoin ABC's November ...
What Bitcoin Did #98 Lightning Critique: FUD or Fair? with ...
Peter Rizun News Crypto Breaking News
Bitcoin Unlimited Chief Scientist Peter Rizun: Human ...
nChain Attempts to Silence Peter Rizun Over Craig Wright ...
Peter R. Rizun: "This is a really interesting idea from awemany (the dev who found the inflation bug in Bitcoin Core) about how “forfeit transactions” can be built with the new BCH op-codes to insure instant bitcoin transactions."
Peter R. Rizun: "This is a really interesting idea from awemany (the dev who found the inflation bug in Bitcoin Core) about how “forfeit transactions” can be built with the new BCH op-codes to insure instant bitcoin transactions."
Peter R. Rizun: "This is a really interesting idea from awemany (the dev who found the inflation bug in Bitcoin Core) about how forfeit transactions can be built with the new BCH op-codes to insure instant bitcoin transactions."
Where is the legal due diligence to show ABCcoin won't become a security by the Howey Test?
I asked this question in a comment in another thread, but instead of answering it was downvoted (probably by ABC supporters who don't want to see this question). But it wasn't me that raised this very legit question - it was Peter Rizun: https://read.cash/@PeterRizun/the-best-of-intentions-the-dev-tax-is-intended-to-benefit-investors-but-will-corrupt-us-instead-012f5dbd#the-howey-test-mined-coins-vs-securities Right now Bitcoin Cash, just like BTC, doesn't have that problem. So IFP supporters, link me to a legal analysis commissioned by ABC to show that it's not a great risk to the $4.8B coin. Surely you have the money to get good counsel on that. State financial regulators are now trying to attack coins on whatever grounds they can find. IMO, not only is the IFP a horrible idea from soundness perspectives, but it opens up multiple new ways for governments to attack, including based on existing regulations. Change my mind.
the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story. My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to manyread.casharticles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important. summary & my narrating of the story: The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan". On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds. By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books. Important resources:coinspice IFP timeline&Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions History Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source] Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source] Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article] Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source] Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function. Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article] Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature. Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it. Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source] Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement] Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement] Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source] Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source] Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source] Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much. Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source] Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects. Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source] Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article] Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3 Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source] Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source] Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source] Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source] Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source] Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source] Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source] Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source] Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source] Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source] Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source] Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source] Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source] Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source] Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source] May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source] May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source] May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source] May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source] May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source] Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source] Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source] Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source] Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source] Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source] Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source] Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source] Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source] Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source] Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source] 4th year, august 2020 – 2021 Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source] Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source] Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source] Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source] Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source] Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source] Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source] Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source] Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding. Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.” Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
My top 5 (and more) arguments against the mining tax as implemented in ABC 0.21.0
These are mine, but I'd like to hear yours in the comments!
Corrupting influence. Mixing monetary policy (money supply regulation, in Bitcoin: coin creation) and fiscal policy (roughly: government spending and taxing) is what central banks already do, and we know the results. Bitcoin was not designed to deliver such a mix - the newly created coin was, up to now, fully owned by the miner creating the block, and matures after a certain time when it can be spent. Miners can voluntary spend their coinbase outputs to other parties already. In this way fiscal decisions are decentralized as much possible - meaning every miner / pool gets to decide how to spend 100% of their mining block reward (or share thereof). Do you already see how Bitcoin's design removes all possible financial intermediaries - including any trusted "government" or "fund" that decides how to spend other peoples' money? If so, you already get my first point. Peter Rizun has mentioned the legal concerns around directing colluding miner funds to certain entities with expectation of results. IANAL, but I think the argument that instituting such a change on protocol level could bring BCH into conflict with security law (Howey Test) should be seriously examined.
Due to how information is distributed, a centrally planned economy cannot match the efficiency of the open market. A free market is all that is needed to fund things. Miners and anyone else can already fund any kind of development (or other activities) through the existing protocol. Furthermore, we know there are successful methods of funding public goods in voluntary ways through Assurance Contracts. These have not been deployed on Bitcoin Cash before (early crowdfunding systems didn't implement them properly), but are basically ready to go now (Flipstarter) and could offer BCH an improvement even over other successful systems like Monero's Community Crowdfunding System (CCS) due to the fact that we can do this non-custodially via Bitcoin Cash scripts. Going for a miner tax based "dev fund" with nebulous administration and all the accompanying hazards seems a poor choice before we tried the voluntary route which preserves the original economic freedom and incentives of Bitcoin Cash.
Increased centralization of mining and development. Going with the plan would work counter to a decentralized protocol client environment, and centralize even more power with the dominant client (ABC). The donation address whitelist is hardcoded into the client. Miners/pools who don't obey the new rules of contributing 5% of block reward to active whitelisted addresses have their blocks orphaned, lowering the chain hashrate (security) and driving away small miners who might not be able to afford the margin. This centralizes mining on BCH beyond what's necessary. Again, a free market will deliver better security and service!
Sold with a veneer of false pretenses. We are told that other (non-BCH) SHA256 miners will effectively pay the cost, but this argument has been effectively debunked. The cost is paid for all BCH holders, as it comes out of the agreed upon money supply inflation. It comes at the cost of lowered BCH chain hashrate = security, with the concomitant increased risk of other miners executing attacks on BCH. Yet, holders don't get to vote right now, except by selling their BCH or converting it into hashpower. Did you know financial markets can offer instruments to let holders express their opinion about possible futures (whether they'd prefer one outcome or another) with slight or no punishment in the case of no split - i.e. actually could facilitate a no-split outcome that many BCH users & holders recognize as preferable? Another pretense is that the plan, if successful, would terminate after a limited time. This is not what regularly happens in taxpayer-funded government programs, and it is paradoxical to assume that a measure to support ongoing maintenance and development would, if deemed successful in a trial run, be expected to be terminated. Especially if the people receiving the funds are literally the ones deciding and writing the rules. In governments we at least came up with separation of powers (legislative, judicial, executive). Why should be mix up powers again? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Serious developers also recognize that the dollar amounts we are talking about in the proposed plan are too low to expect completion within the previously announced limited timeframes. Giving a good hint that the limited timeframe was a nothing but a public pacifier when planners already expect it to continue.
The proposal is poorly conceived in terms of safety against malicious activation. Only 66% of hashrate need to vote for it over a two week period. Previously, BCH miners objected to any form of hashrate voting on BCH with the argument that it is still a very-low hashrate minority fork. That has not changed materially, but suddenly we are supposed to accept that hashrate voting on our minority coin is safe. Can't have it both ways. As an additional point, there is no 6 month sunset clause built into the implementation, and it seems removed from the plan agreed between ABC and miners (as per recent ABC website post). This completely reneges on the "update" previously presented to the community in that regard, re-affirming that there is no serious commitment to ending this after a limited time.
I probably squeezed in too many explanations. Originally my aim was to get a short summary. I should try to sum it up better, but I know there are many people who could do a much better job at that. Please speak up, correct me where you feel I'm wrong, and add points that you think are missing! P.S. I fully realize that the ones pushing this plan are not likely to be swayed by any of these arguments. I am presenting mine here in hopes to encourage further discussion, and I hope you will do the same, so everyone is armed with knowledge, going into what looks like it could be an escalating dispute within our community. Perhaps though, there is a minute chance that backers of the plan could see the danger in the split that they are creating. I still have hope, but I'm also prepared to act.
As everyone probably knows by now, the BitcoinABC developers have pushed code (https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/releases/tag/v0.21.0) and done a code freeze on the release for May that includes a 5% tax on mined blocks (incl fees) and will be active on the network once 66% of miners have approved it. Bitcoin Unlimited opposes this (https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1229921793697124353) as do hundreds of other traders, developers, and miners (https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/f4qgry/lets_have_a_show_of_hands_who_supports_the_ifp/). So, come May there will obviously be some contention. Below are the possible scenarios and how they play out, any devs who can weigh in on the uncertainties would be helpful: Scenario 1:The IFP does not get 66% support and it never gets activated on the network. This is the smoothest outcome but does not appear likely given the miner support of the tax so far. But it would result in a unified BCH and no orphaning or forking would occur. Scenario 2:The IFP gets 66% support and the anti-IFP people concede and run the new ABC code to be in consensus. This basically is the "okay we give up you win" scenario where the ABC supporters who want the IFP triumph and the BCH community unites in consensus, supporting the tax. This seems unlikely given that the opposition to IFP is based on core principles around altering the protocol and what is appropriate for such cases. As such, if this does happen, it likely results in a decline in BCH price and perhaps even larger support for BSV. But, no new coin would arise out of this. Scenario 3:Some miners run the new ABC code and the network gets 66% support, but some miners and users refuse to support it and continue to run Bitcoin Unlimited. As I understand it, and Peter__R can correct me, the current BU code being run would just result in those miners running BU getting orphaned from the network. I am unclear on whether this will lead to a new chain being forked as well where BU supporters would then have a new chain with no replay protection. Those in the BCH community who can't stomach BSV or the IFP will find some way to fork into a new coin and preserve BCH as they think it should be. Feel free to add to this, I am just thinking outloud about what can happen in May. What do you guys think?
We must become organised to stop a corruption of the BCH protocol
Yesterday BitcoinABC released version 0.21 of their client. In this release a consensus rule is included that requires all BCH miners to pay5% of their block subsidyand5% of the fees they receive to a set of up to 4 BCH addresses. These addresses are controlled by:
This significant change in the protocol is to be activated using a BIP9 method. It will activate when at least 66% of 2016 blocks are produced by miners running their new release. There is no end date for the tax once it has been activated, so it will go on indefinitely unless manually removed with another hardfork. This is occurring in the context of an almost unanimous opposition by the BCH ecosystem of businesses, miners, projects and users. This is something that they are fully aware of and have decided to ignore and push ahead anyway. While it is of course true that the community needs to make sure there is sufficient funding for the projects within the BCH ecosystem that deserve it, and that the funding is provided voluntarily, there are currently numerous efforts under way to create software that makes this as simple as possible. For example, Flipstarter, U-DID, , and pool Donations. There is also a significant amount of will in the community to provide funding if sensible and concrete proposals are put forward. This change is not only a fundamental change to the properties of Bitcoin as described in the original whitepaper, but has the high likelihood of causing a major split if the entire ecosystem does not work towards stopping it from happening. Many of us are now organising an effort to oppose this fundamental change. We need as much of the ecosystem as possible to put their effort into stopping this if you don't want this to happen, so please join us at:
The "free-rider problem": comparing the funding of hash rate security vs. that of protocol development
I wrote an article the other day about the "dev tax" proposal in which I argued that it was, well, pretty fucked. Indeed, I argue that the proposal is quite similar in its principle-violating nature to a proposal that would seek to fund development via a "tiny" "one-time-only-we-promise" increase in the 21MM coin supply limit. If you haven't read that article yet, you should do so now as it's a real tour de force: The "Dev Tax" proposal is worse than I thought (and I thought it was pretty bad). Today I've been thinking more about how the proposal relates to the so-called "free-rider problem," about which wikpedia says the following:
In the social sciences, the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods (such as public roads or hospitals), or services of a communal nature do not pay for them or under-pay. Free riders are a problem because while not paying for the good (either directly through fees or tolls or indirectly through taxes), they may continue to access or use it. Thus, the good may be under-produced, overused or degraded.
Note that Bitcoin's block subsidy / inflation schedule is an attempt to solve a free-rider problem surrounding initial chain security (and, as an aside, also to solve the problem of the initial distribution of funds in a fair and competitive way). We (holders) obviously don't like having our holdings effectively diluted via the issuance of new coins. But we all benefit from the hash rate security those newly-issued coins incentivize. When the system is first starting out, how can we achieve a reasonable level of security when the demand for transactions (and the fees they're capable of generating) is going to be minuscule? Via an agreed-upon inflation schedule whereby every holder is obligated to subsidize hash rate security. There's arguably a similar free-rider problem surrounding the development of protocol software. But there are two critical differences between that free-rider problem and the one surrounding initial chain security. First, I think the problem relating to development is a lot smaller and easier to solve without hard-coding anything into the consensus protocol. Peter Rizun nicely summarizes why the free-rider problem re: protocol software development should not be viewed as an intractable one in his recent article:
The bitcoin protocol is very simple and was mostly complete in 2009 (by Satoshi). It is 11 years later and we should be moving towards a stable protocol (without block size limits) and the role of the "protocol developer" should be waning. Many people are passionate about bitcoin and will continue to do the work that needs doing. And as bitcoin becomes more important to businesses—because we attract more users—these business will also have an incentive to contribute. But with service fees funding a wage assistance program for select developers, these select developers will block initiatives that come from the volunteer devs or companies, to avoid revealing the uselessness of the assistance program. In fact, the developers receiving assistance will create roadblocks that only they can solve in order to justify their continued feeding from the public trough.
Second, I'd suggest that attempting to solve the free-rider problem re: initial chain security via the consensus protocol itself is much, much, MUCH (three "much-es") less subject to abuse / corruption. When a holder's share of the ledger is diluted via inflation to fund hash rate security, they know exactly what they're getting. Hash rate. A higher cost for an attacker to acquire 51% of that hash rate and attack the network. But are all or even most holders in a position to evaluate what they'd be getting from this Hong Kong corporation writing a check to Joe Blow developer? Are they checking and critically evaluating each one of his commits (or how helpful suggestions he made in a slack channel turned out to be, or how much time he spent reviewing other developers' code for bugs)? No, of course not! So, in summary, the free-rider problem for development is both smaller and more easily solved outside the consensus protocol than is the free-rider problem of initial chain security, and the former problem would also be much harder to solve within the consensus protocol without becoming corrupt. EDIT: Here's another way to think about things. Right now, Bitcoin Cash uses a pre-determined amount of inflation as a method of solving the free-rider problem surrounding the provision of initial hash rate security. The recent "developer tax" proposal seeks to divert some of that inflation away from solving that problem, and redirect it towards a different supposed free-rider problem, namely that of funding protocol software development. My point (or at least one of them) is that such a proposal isn't all that different in principle from one that would instead seek to address the latter problem via the introduction of additional inflation, i.e., by increasing the 21MM supply cap.
An incomplete history of the Bitcoin Cash's origin and the Minimum Viable Fork project
A common meme is that Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and Craig Wright are the ones responsible for the creation of Bitcoin Cash. This is untrue. Those are figureheads who played a role in popularizing or (for Bitmain, allegedly) funding later development, but they played almost no part until Bitcoin Cash development was long since underway. The Bitmain UAHF contingency plan blog post was made on 2017-06-14. This was the first event in Bitcoin Cash's history that reached a wide audience, but it came 15 months after work on what later became Bitcoin Cash began. The public decision to do a minority hard fork happened 2016-07-31, and was spearheaded by singularity87 and ftrader. ftrader did most of the initial development, which he had started back in March 2016. Even back then, the plan to fork before Segwit's activation was clear:
Bitmain was merely joining their effort in 2017, not starting it. Bitcoin Cash evolved out of the Minimum Viable Fork project that ftradeFreetrader started in March 2016, and which was discussed in /btcfork and /btc. Freetrader blogged about it quite a bit. If you read through his posts, you can see his initial prototype was built on Bitcoin Classic. In Oct 2016, a MVF version based on Bitcoin Core was made. Development on MVF stalled during the latter half of 2016 when it seemed like Bitcoin Unlimited's emergent consensus proposal was likely to gain adoption, but heated up again in early 2017 when BU lost support after a few remote crash 0-day exploits were found and used against BU on March 15 and again in April. Freetrader restarted his MVF work on Bitcoin Unlimited in April. The first mention of Bitcoin ABC is from May 7, 2017. The ABC project was started by deadalnix, but with mostly the same goal as ftrader's work using Core as the base instead of BU or Classic. At that time, ABC was just Core 0.14 minus RBF and Segwit; it didn't yet have any blocksize changes. Deadalnix reached out to Freetrader and asked him if he wanted to help, which Freetrader did. Freetrader made the first prototype of Bitcoin ABC with a blocksize limit other than 1 MB on or before May 21, 2017, while still working in parallel on the Bitcoin Unlimited version of the MVF. Ftrader and deadalnix continued to work on Bitcoin ABC for a couple months before Bitmain even mentioned their support for the contingency plan, and their contingency plan was basically the same as what ftrader and singularity87 had proposed back in June 2016 (but with more refinements and details worked out) -- perform a minority hard fork from BTC before Segwit activates to increase the blocksize limit, and do so in a way that ensures as clean a split as possible. Bitcoin ABC was announced to the public on July 1st, 2017, by ftrader and by deadalnix, about 2-3 months after deadalnix and ftrader began working on it, and 2 weeks after Bitmain announced its intent to support the UAHF. On the date that BCH forked, there were four separate compatible full-node clients:
Bitcoin ABC, developed mostly by Amaury Sechet/deadalnix and freetrader;
Bitcoin Unlimited, developed by the BU team (Andrew Stone/thezerg, Peter Tchipper, Andrea Suisani/sickpig, Peter Rizun, freetrader, and a few others, and funded by anonymous donors in 2016 for their Emergent Consensus proposal);
Bitcoin XT, developed initially by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and later by Tom Harding/dgenr8 and dagurval
Of those developers, the only ones who received money while they were working on these clients were possibly deadalnix (alleged but unconfirmed to be paid by Bitmain), and Gavin (MIT Digital Currency Initiative). Everybody else was a volunteer. At the time, BU's funds only paid for conferences, travel expenses, and a $20,000 bug bounty; BU didn't start paying its developers until after the BCH hard fork. A lot of Bitcoin Cash's early support came from Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. ViaBTC's exchange was the first to offer BCH trading pairs, and ViaBTC's pool was the first public pool to support BCH. I've also heard that Haipo Yang was the one who coined the name Bitcoin Cash -- can anyone confirm or deny this? ViaBTC played a significant role in BCH's deployment, far more than Roger Ver or Craig Wright, and had a comparable amount of influence to Bitmain. However, this was not obvious on the outside, because Haipo Yang is the kind of person who quietly builds things that work, instead of just being a prominent talking head like Craig Wright and Roger Ver are. Roger himself actually didn't fully support Bitcoin Cash until after the fork. Initially, he had his hopes up for Segwit2x, as did I. His name was conspicuously missing in an Aug 1, 2017 article about who supports Bitcoin Cash. It was only after Segwit2x failed on Nov 8, 2017 that he started to support BCH. Craig Wright on the other hand did praise the Bitcoin Cash initiative early on, probably largely because he hated Segwit for some reason. But he didn't do anything to help create BCH; he only spoke in favor of it. (I really wish he hadn't. His involvement in BCH fostered a lot of false beliefs among Bitcoin Cash's userbase, like the belief that selfish mining doesn't exist. We were only able to get rid of his crazed followers when BSV forked off. I'm very grateful that happened. But I digress.) Most people didn't take him seriously, but a modest minority bought his narrative hard. He was a pretty minor player at the time, and remained so until 2018. These are the people who created Bitcoin Cash. It's easy to place all the credit/blame on the most vocal figureheads, but the marketing department does not create the product; they just sell it. If you weren't around during the product's development, it's hard to know who actually built the thing and who was just a bandwagon joiner. CSW and Roger just hopped on the bandwagon. Jihan Wu/Bitmain and Haipo Yang/ViaBTC joined the crew of the bandwagon and contributed substantially to its development and survival, but by the time they had joined the bandwagon was already in motion. The real instigators were the community members like ftrader, deadalnix, singularity87, the BU crew, the Electron Cash crew (Calin Culianu, kyuupichan, Jonald Fyookball, etc.) and the many others who contributed in various ways that I haven't documented. For those of you who played a role or know of someone else who did but whom I didn't mention in this post, please make a comment below so we can all hear about it.
Miner donations will not be implemented. I will vote No in the hashrate vote.
Jiang Zhuoer, the founder of Leibite mining pool, said in a Weibo post. It was him who first proposed the plan, and it was also him who stood up and said that he would vote against it. The taste is only known to the BCH community who has been sawing for more than a month. Planned preform All this has to start from January 22. On this day, Jiang Zhuoer also published the article "Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP) for Bitcoin Cash" on Weibo and medium at the same time. In his opinion, the current BCH has a problem of developer operating funds, only A few companies donate to developers, and the other members are hitchhikers, which can be called a tragedy of the commons. In fact, it is not just BCH. Many early projects without 1CO lack a continuous source of funds. BTC and LTC also rely on the sustainable funding of companies and individuals to donate to developers. Regarding this, Jiang Zhuoer added at the subsequent AMA held by Reddit that a few companies continued to donate, and these companies' right to speak would increase, which might affect the development in the future, which is also a major hidden danger. So based on the consideration of stable development funds, he said that several major mining pools on BCH (BTC.TOP, Antpool, BTC.com, ViaBTC, Bitcoin.com) will implement a new donation plan that will reward BCH for block explosions. 12.5% was donated to a specially established fund to support BCH infrastructure, which aims to provide sufficient funds for BCH developers. Blocks that are unwilling to participate in this donation plan will be isolated. According to its disclosure, the donation will last 6 months and the estimated amount is about 6 million US dollars. A Hong Kong company has been set up to accept and distribute funds. At the end of the article, Jiang Zhuoer, Wu Jihan, Yang Haibo and Roger Ver were stated to be supporters of this plan. The response was extremely intense After the news came out, BCH communities at home and abroad had a heated discussion. There are mixed voices in China. Some people think that this is a great benefit to the BCH currency price. Some people think that this is a miner sacrificing part of their own interests to support infrastructure construction. It is a manifestation of the spirit of the community, but some people allege that this is a pumping behavior ... these are evident in the comments below Jiang Zhuo's blog post. The foreign community, which has gathered most of the BCH developers and core personnel, is even more dramatic. On January 23, the day after the BCH miner donation plan was issued, Amaury Séchet (@deadalnix), the chief developer of the ABC team of BCH, posted a post on read.cash , which is the platform for the donation plan. He said this plan It has been brewing for a long time. The operation of the team needs financial support, clarifying that this is not the so-called "compulsory miner tax". What's more notable is that he thinks that there is no problem as long as the endowment fund can be transparent, and even Mao has recommended himself that he and Jonald Fyookball, the chief developer of Electron Cash, a light wallet developed by BCH, are qualified to control the fund. Later, the Jonald Fyookball he mentioned also posted on read.cash , which also said that it would be beneficial to the team and miners. I have tried many measures on development funds before, but none of them worked. One will be a short six-month trial and will be upgraded in the next BCH agreement. However, the core people in the community took the lead to speak out in support of this, but it could not stop the tide of opposition afterwards. In order to fight for the miners' donation, the moderators of read.cash also created a special "Debate section"  for the community to express their opinions. On January 26, Peter Rizun, chief scientist of the Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) team, posted a post on it , explaining in detail the operation of funds in this scheme. (It is necessary to add here that the BCH network is composed of two major clients, ABC and BU, which together account for more than 95% of the 1,510 public nodes in the BCH network.) According to his article, the 12.5% block reward BCH tokens will be sent directly to the new company in Hong Kong, and the developer's operating funds will come from the funds obtained by the new company from selling these BCH tokens on the exchange. After the mining revenue decreases, the hash rate of the network will drop by about the same percentage. Since BCH accounts for about 3% of the SHA256 hash rate, and other conditions remain unchanged, the total income of SHA256 miners will fall by ~ 0.4%. The following figure graphically shows the flow of these donated tokens: In fact, the mining The merchant lost only a small part of its profits. The group of investors who ultimately bought the BCH tokens out of the Hong Kong company. In the text, Peter Rizun pointed out that this is simply the developer service tax of BCH, and corruption will arise. In addition, the Bitcoin protocol has been eleven years so far. At present, what BCH needs to do is how to make the protocol more stable. The role of developer should gradually fade away, and the continuous growth of users is the core. Peter Rizun even stated at the end of the article that the monopolistic miners are still trying to adopt such a plan, and the greed is obvious and disgusting, and the BU team will probably not accept this donation plan. On the same day, BCH developer Imaginary Username posted that he believes that the development team's funds can come directly from capital investment, sponsorship, shareholder contributions and voluntary payments by miners, rather than forcing miners to pay. c After this, a BCH crowdfunding plan named Flipstarter.cash was announced online , and proposed other fundraising schemes other than donations from miners, and emphasized that this would be a new proposal based on voluntary. In general, opponents of these donation programs acknowledge that developers need revenue and infrastructure needs to be maintained, but also said that if the final plan is passed, those who do not support this plan will be lonely and violate the blockchain. spirit. Whether the taxation in disguise causes corruption, whether it will be carried out for a long time, or whether it violates the spirit of blockchain decentralization is the focus of debate. Things are still fermenting. Subsequently, Bitcoin.com also began to counter water, thinking that there is no consensus on this plan at present, and the development team needs to be clear about their use of funds. Bitcoin.com will also adopt a more prudent attitude and will not risk the risk of chain forks To support this decision. Regenerate In the face of various oppositions, Jiang Zhuoer released a new donation plan on February 1 , stating that the issue of donation ratio is in fact questionable, and reiterated that this plan will be democratic and encourage miners to perform computing power. Vote for your opinion. This plan will only be implemented if more than two-thirds of the computing power vote in favor of the donation. On February 16, Jiang Zhuoer updated the donation plan again, which reduced the original 12.5% to 5%. However, the release of the new version did not solve the doubts in the community. In response, digital currency commentator WhalePanda tweeted that the miner's tax rate is very funny, and any block that is not donated will be blocked. This is actually a totalitarian totalitarian regime, accompanied by a 51% attack threat. On the same day on the 16th, Roger ver, the founder of the Bitcoin.com wallet, posted a YouTube video . He believed that the donation ratio was 12.5% or 5% a bit random, and said "probably because of communication problems". His donation plan supporters have his name, but in fact he and Bitcoin.com do not support the plan. In fact, aside from the question of donation ratio, it is worth considering whether this so-called hashrate voting has practical significance. According to data from BTC.com, the five mining pools of the four supporters mentioned by Jiang Zhuoer have a total BCH computing power of more than 51%, reaching 54.5%, occupying a considerable say, and it is difficult for other miners to have a real speech right. Despite the opposition of the plan, it was still proceeding methodically. On February 18, according to an official BitcoinABC tweet, the ABC team has added the code for the donation plan to the ABC version 0.21.0 client. At the same time, TobiasRuck and Antony Zegers of the ABC team, and the BCHD team have stated their support for the donation plan at this node. On the one hand, there is no consensus, and on the other hand, donations need to be opened. This self-talking attitude caused strong dissatisfaction in the community. On February 19th, Freetrader, one of the earliest developers in the BCH ecosystem, created a full node called BCH Node (BCHN) , This version will remove the donation plan, express protest, and then release the PGP signatures of the BCHN project supporters. The supporters gathered, including Alexander Levin Jr, CEO of Asicseer.com, Pokkst of Crescent Cash wallet, Tipbitcoin cash, bitcoincashj , Tubing host Collin Enstad and others. Fragmentation and unification To this point, the community split into two camps, led by the ABC team and Electron Cash wallet, BCHD, etc. to support the donation plan, and BU, BCHN, etc. formed an opposition. In fact, various disputes have already raised concerns from the domestic and foreign communities that BCH may fork again. Fragmentation, strife ... This softened Jiang Zhuoer's attitude in LongBit's online live broadcast, saying that at least basic community consensus must be reached before donations can begin. Subsequently, at the second meeting of the BCH developers, Séchet of the ABC team who initially stood up to support this plan also said loosely that there are currently differences, and miners will not ignore these opinions and go their own ways. If the community becomes better, Alternatives can also be implemented. The concessions of the Séchets became a sign of gradual strife in foreign communities. Regarding the end of the entire donation plan, it ended with a post by Jiang Zhuoer's Weibo. In the article "Talking about the differences and recent market trends of BTC, BCH, and BSV" on March 5, Jiang Zhuoer said that due to a lot of opposition from the community, especially from major BCH supporters like Roger, the donations of miners will not be implemented. . The dispute, which lasted more than a month, finally ended with the termination of the donation plan. In fact, the donation plan was updated many times, and the donation share easily changed without letting us see the basis for its formulation, as Roger ver said "somewhat randomly". And "voluntary and democratic" computing power voting, if someone finally voted No in the computing power vote can influence the result, which will also lead to thinking about computing power dictatorship.
This FAQ and information thread serves to inform both new and existing users about common Bitcoin topics that readers coming to this Bitcoin subreddit may have. This is a living and breathing document, which will change over time. If you have suggestions on how to change it, please comment below or message the mods. What is /btc? The /btc reddit community was originally created as a community to discuss bitcoin. It quickly gained momentum in August 2015 when the bitcoin block size debate heightened. On the legacy /bitcoin subreddit it was discovered that moderators were heavily censoring discussions that were not inline with their own opinions. Once realized, the subreddit subscribers began to openly question the censorship which led to thousands of redditors being banned from the /bitcoin subreddit. A large number of redditors switched to other subreddits such as /bitcoin_uncensored and /btc. For a run-down on the history of censorship, please read A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /bitcoin by John Blocke and /Bitcoin Censorship, Revisted by John Blocke. As yet another example, /bitcoin censored 5,683 posts and comments just in the month of September 2017 alone. This shows the sheer magnitude of censorship that is happening, which continues to this day. Read a synopsis of /bitcoin to get the full story and a complete understanding of why people are so upset with /bitcoin's censorship. Further reading can be found here and here with a giant collection of information regarding these topics. Why is censorship bad for Bitcoin? As demonstrated above, censorship has become prevalent in almost all of the major Bitcoin communication channels. The impacts of censorship in Bitcoin are very real. "Censorship can really hinder a society if it is bad enough. Because media is such a large part of people’s lives today and it is the source of basically all information, if the information is not being given in full or truthfully then the society is left uneducated [...] Censorship is probably the number one way to lower people’s right to freedom of speech." By censoring certain topics and specific words, people in these Bitcoin communication channels are literally being brain washed into thinking a certain way, molding the reader in a way that they desire; this has a lasting impact especially on users who are new to Bitcoin. Censoring in Bitcoin is the direct opposite of what the spirit of Bitcoin is, and should be condemned anytime it occurs. Also, it's important to think critically and independently, and have an open mind. Why do some groups attempt to discredit /btc? This subreddit has become a place to discuss everything Bitcoin-related and even other cryptocurrencies at times when the topics are relevant to the overall ecosystem. Since this subreddit is one of the few places on Reddit where users will not be censored for their opinions and people are allowed to speak freely, truth is often said here without the fear of reprisal from moderators in the form of bans and censorship. Because of this freedom, people and groups who don't want you to hear the truth with do almost anything they can to try to stop you from speaking the truth and try to manipulate readers here. You can see many cited examples of cases where special interest groups have gone out of their way to attack this subreddit and attempt to disrupt and discredit it. See the examples here. What is the goal of /btc? This subreddit is a diverse community dedicated to the success of bitcoin. /btc honors the spirit and nature of Bitcoin being a place for open and free discussion about Bitcoin without the interference of moderators. Subscribers at anytime can look at and review the public moderator logs. This subreddit does have rules as mandated by reddit that we must follow plus a couple of rules of our own. Make sure to read the /btc wiki for more information and resources about this subreddit which includes information such as the benefits of Bitcoin, how to get started with Bitcoin, and more. What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a digital currency, also called a virtual currency, which can be transacted for a low-cost nearly instantly from anywhere in the world. Bitcoin also powers the blockchain, which is a public immutable and decentralized global ledger. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever. There is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. As such, it is more resistant to wild inflation and corrupt banks. With Bitcoin, you can be your own bank. Read the Bitcoin whitepaper to further understand the schematics of how Bitcoin works. What is Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin Cash (ticker symbol: BCH) is an updated version of Bitcoin which solves the scaling problems that have been plaguing Bitcoin Core (ticker symbol: BTC) for years. Bitcoin (BCH) is just a continuation of the Bitcoin project that allows for bigger blocks which will give way to more growth and adoption. You can read more about Bitcoin on BitcoinCash.org or read What is Bitcoin Cash for additional details. How do I buy Bitcoin? You can buy Bitcoin on an exchange or with a brokerage. If you're looking to buy, you can buy Bitcoin with your credit card to get started quickly and safely. There are several others places to buy Bitcoin too; please check the sidebar under brokers, exchanges, and trading for other go-to service providers to begin buying and trading Bitcoin. Make sure to do your homework first before choosing an exchange to ensure you are choosing the right one for you. How do I store my Bitcoin securely? After the initial step of buying your first Bitcoin, you will need a Bitcoin wallet to secure your Bitcoin. Knowing which Bitcoin wallet to choose is the second most important step in becoming a Bitcoin user. Since you are investing funds into Bitcoin, choosing the right Bitcoin wallet for you is a critical step that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Use this guide to help you choose the right wallet for you. Check the sidebar under Bitcoin wallets to get started and find a wallet that you can store your Bitcoin in. Why is my transaction taking so long to process? Bitcoin transactions typically confirm in ~10 minutes. A confirmation means that the Bitcoin transaction has been verified by the network through the process known as mining. Once a transaction is confirmed, it cannot be reversed or double spent. Transactions are included in blocks. If you have sent out a Bitcoin transaction and it’s delayed, chances are the transaction fee you used wasn’t enough to out-compete others causing it to be backlogged. The transaction won’t confirm until it clears the backlog. This typically occurs when using the Bitcoin Core (BTC) blockchain due to poor central planning. If you are using Bitcoin (BCH), you shouldn't encounter these problems as the block limits have been raised to accommodate a massive amount of volume freeing up space and lowering transaction costs. Why does my transaction cost so much, I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be cheap? As described above, transaction fees have spiked on the Bitcoin Core (BTC) blockchain mainly due to a limit on transaction space. This has created what is called a fee market, which has primarily been a premature artificially induced price increase on transaction fees due to the limited amount of block space available (supply vs. demand). The original plan was for fees to help secure the network when the block reward decreased and eventually stopped, but the plan was not to reach that point until some time in the future, around the year 2140. This original plan was restored with Bitcoin (BCH) where fees are typically less than a single penny per transaction. What is the block size limit? The original Bitcoin client didn’t have a block size cap, however was limited to 32MB due to the Bitcoin protocol message size constraint. However, in July 2010 Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto introduced a temporary 1MB limit as an anti-DDoS measure. The temporary measure from Satoshi Nakamoto was made clear three months later when Satoshi said the block size limit can be increased again by phasing it in when it’s needed (when the demand arises). When introducing Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list in 2008, Satoshi said that scaling to Visa levels “would probably not seem like a big deal.” What is the block size debate all about anyways? The block size debate boils down to different sets of users who are trying to come to consensus on the best way to scale Bitcoin for growth and success. Scaling Bitcoin has actually been a topic of discussion since Bitcoin was first released in 2008; for example you can read how Satoshi Nakamoto was asked about scaling here and how he thought at the time it would be addressed. Fortunately Bitcoin has seen tremendous growth and by the year 2013, scaling Bitcoin had became a hot topic. For a run down on the history of scaling and how we got to where we are today, see the Block size limit debate history lesson post. What is a hard fork? A hard fork is when a block is broadcast under a new and different set of protocol rules which is accepted by nodes that have upgraded to support the new protocol. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain to two separate blockchains (a majority chain and a minority chain). What is a soft fork? A soft fork is when a block is broadcast under a new and different set of protocol rules, but the difference is that nodes don’t realize the rules have changed, and continue to accept blocks created by the newer nodes. Some argue that soft forks are bad because they trick old-unupdated nodes into believing transactions are valid, when they may not actually be valid. This can also be defined as coercion, as explained by Vitalik Buterin. Doesn't it hurt decentralization if we increase the block size? Some argue that by lifting the limit on transaction space, that the cost of validating transactions on individual nodes will increase to the point where people will not be able to run nodes individually, giving way to centralization. This is a false dilemma because at this time there is no proven metric to quantify decentralization; although it has been shown that the current level of decentralization will remain with or without a block size increase. It's a logical fallacy to believe that decentralization only exists when you have people all over the world running full nodes. The reality is that only people with the income to sustain running a full node (even at 1MB) will be doing it. So whether it's 1MB, 2MB, or 32MB, the costs of doing business is negligible for the people who can already do it. If the block size limit is removed, this will also allow for more users worldwide to use and transact introducing the likelihood of having more individual node operators. Decentralization is not a metric, it's a tool or direction. This is a good video describing the direction of how decentralization should look. Additionally, the effects of increasing the block capacity beyond 1MB has been studied with results showing that up to 4MB is safe and will not hurt decentralization (Cornell paper, PDF). Other papers also show that no block size limit is safe (Peter Rizun, PDF). Lastly, through an informal survey among all top Bitcoin miners, many agreed that a block size increase between 2-4MB is acceptable. What now? Bitcoin is a fluid ever changing system. If you want to keep up with Bitcoin, we suggest that you subscribe to /btc and stay in the loop here, as well as other places to get a healthy dose of perspective from different sources. Also, check the sidebar for additional resources. Have more questions? Submit a post and ask your peers for help!
WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻♂️
155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
Look, I'm not going to argue the math, I'm just going to argue why it's just a pointless thing to discuss now, because I imagine if the Bitcoin Cash network suddenly had to support 4 billion people tomorrow it would also fail. It would also discover things that don't work. I think you scale as you go, and as you get to 50 million people then you scale, and you look at new technologies, or whether a 100 million people... but, Imagining half the planet is going to be using bitcoin... like, that might take a century, (laughs) that might take 50 years... or it might *never* happen. You know what? It will probably never happen. I would be surprised... you know, I would be willing to bet everything I own, right now, that in 25 years there aren't a billion people using bitcoin. So, why don't we stick to things that are sensible and practical now because that seems to me a bit far fetched to look into.
First off mccormack555, let me be clear I'm not posting this to attack you, but to stimulate discussion and try to understand where you are coming from here. I was dumbfounded when I heard you say this during the interview. Flabbergasted even. I would expect someone like you who dedicates so much time and energy into bitcoin to be hopeful and believe in the potential for its success. IMO... if we don't reach that level of adoption and scale in the next 10 years, bitcoin has failed. So surely if we don't get there in 25 years - that's an epic fail. Do you stand by your statement that you think bitcoin is more likely to fail than succeed? If so, I'd like to know your reasons why you think bitcoin won't succeed at achieving mass adoption in the next 25 years. Is it for technical reasons, social reasons, or combination of both? Maybe I'm way off base, and you define the success of bitcoin differently than I do. Please clarify your thoughts on this. I think P. Rizen's response to you was simple and perfect, and probably resonates with most BCH supporters on this sub.
ok, well I disagree. I would love to see in 25 years a billion people using bitcoin, and I think we can make that happen because I think bitcoin is awesome, and the more people are educated on it the more they'll want to hold a bit of bitcoin
I enjoy this kind of cognitive dissonance, but what's even more interesting to me at a subtle level is that the core devs and followers didn't believe bitcoin could succeed as it was defined by Satoshi in the whitepaper and his other comments. Therefore the fundamental properties of bitcoin had to be changed. Now it seems that they are also trying to redefine the purpose of bitcoin. It is no longer global money, it's becoming something else. BCH's goal is to prove them wrong - that bitcoin can and will succeed as originally intended as global money. That's where the value was, is, and always will be. If the definition of bitcoin's success isn't mass scale & adoption, then what is it?
Fact: Craig lived in Australia during the Satoshi period. The time zone means that, to be Satoshi, Craig would have almost never posted between 3pm and midnight, local time. His peak posting times would have been between 2am and 9:30am. This is practically the opposite of what one would expect.
Fact: Craig’s own mother admits that he has a habit of fabricating stories.
 - This link may be relevant.  - Why would Satoshi do this?  - Sounds like Satoshi, huh?  - I urge you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s whitepaper Now, before the deluge of comments about how ”it doesn’t matter WHO he is, only that WHAT he says aligns with Satoshi’s vision”, I’d like to say: Is it of absolutely no relevance at all if someone is a huge fraud and liar? If it’s not, then I hope you’ve never accused anyone of lying or being a member of ‘The Dragon’s Den’ or a troll or of spreading FUD. I hope you’ve never pre-judged someone’s comments because of their name or reputation. I hope you’ve only ever considered technical arguments. That said, I am not even directly arguing against anything he’s currently saying (other than random clear lies). I’ve never said anything about Blockstream, positive or negative. I’ve never expressed an opinion about what the ideal block size should be right now. My account is over 6 years old and I post in many different subs. Compare that with these (very popular!) users who frequently call me a troll or member of the ‘dragon’s den’ (with zero facts or evidence):
Does anyone else see what's going on? This subreddit is absolutely INFESTED with Craig's shills!
BMG Pool (nChain), Coingeek, and Unknown currently have over 50% hashpower on the BCH chain. TLDR: Craig Wright (nChain) is attempting a hostile takeover of the BCH chain with his Satoshi (lol) Vision client, and is employing the same Blockstream type tactics. His army of shills use psychological projection and gas-lighting. When you call these shills out, they project that YOU are the shill, and are trying to destroy BCH. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This subreddit is absolutely INFESTED with Craig's shills! Some of the most obvious being: GrumpyAnarchistheuristicpunch (formerly geekmonk) 5heikki And a new suspect of mine is cryptorebel Allow me to explain why. These people support CSW unconditionally. They overlook the incredibly toxic and slimy things that Craig does, and say "Well, Craig can sometimes be a bit abrasive, but he truly has a deeper understanding of Bitcoin than anyone else!". NO! Not only is CSW a liar, fraud, and incredibly toxic individual, but he has proven time and time again to be technically incompetent. These users create DOZENS of comments and posts every day on this subreddit. Almost as if it's their full time job?! I finally called out cryptorebel on his bullshit, and this is his response:
Oh ok I am an idiot why? Nice name calling arguments. You probably are just another sockpuppet, like the rest. Fuck off. You never supported BCH in the beginning either, you were a segshit2x supporter. So fuck off.
He immediately projects that I am the sockpuppet, even though I rarely post on here anymore. Even though I've given away thousands of dollars worth of BCH, I guess I'm just a fucking sockpuppet huh! Has anyone noticed this new false narrative that "This subreddit is under attack by trolls of all kind! ABC trolls, Bitcoin Unlimited trolls, Core trolls, even a few nChain trolls! What a mess!". NO! The ONLY group I see causing problems on this subreddit lately, are Craig's shills! Amaury Sechet, Peter Rizun and the like, have always behaved professionally, and like NORMAL people, and the ONLY group that is truly RUINING the Bitcoin Cash community is nChain and their shills. Herearesome recent posts by cryptorebel, where he tries to manipulate you all into believing that this subreddit is under attack by some external threat. He is trying to plant the idea into your mind that anyone who disagrees with Craig, and considers him a fraud, is actually a TROLL or an agent using COINTELPRO tactics to divide our community! cryptorebel is basically saying: All of this drama on this subreddit lately is not being caused by the nChain sockpuppets, but rather ABC/BU/Core trolls who are trying to divide us against each other. Craig Wright has done nothing wrong! People are only attacking him because they are actually agents using COINTELPRO tactics to pit us against eachother! The levels of projection here are OFF THE CHARTS. I'm uncertain of the future of BCH. We thought we won the fight after we broke away from our Blockstream controllers, but just one year of independence and we already have a new adversary.
He was paid millions for ‘coming out’ as Satoshi as part of the deal to sell his patents to nTrust — for those who claim he was ‘outed’ or had no motive
Caught Red Handed Plagiarizing
No respectable academic, scientist, or professional needs to stoop so low as to steal and take credit for the work of others — least of all Satoshi. Yet, CSW has already been caught at least 3 times plagiarizing.
Lightning Network Will Likely Fail Due To Several Possible Reasons
ECONOMIC CASE IS ABSENT FOR MANY TRANSACTIONS The median Bitcoin (BTC) fee is $14.41 currently. This has gone parabolic in the past few days. So, let’s use a number before this parabolic rise, which was $3.80. Using this number, opening and closing a Lightning Network (LN) channel means that you will pay $7.60 in fees. Most likely, the fee will be much higher for two reasons:
BTC fees have been trending higher all year and will be higher by the time LN is ready
When you are in the shoe store or restaurant, you will likely pay a higher fee so that you are not waiting there for one or more hours for confirmation.
Let’s say hypothetically that Visa or Paypal charges $1 per transaction. This means that Alice and Carol would need to do 8 or more LN transactions, otherwise it would be cheaper to use Visa or Paypal. But it gets worse. Visa doesn’t charge the customer. To you, Visa and Cash are free. You would have no economic incentive to use BTC and LN. Also, Visa does not charge $1 per transaction. They charge 3%, which is 60 cents on a $20 widget. Let’s say that merchants discount their widgets by 60 cents for non-Visa purchases, to pass the savings onto the customer. Nevertheless, no one is going to use BTC and LN to buy the widget unless 2 things happen:
they buy more than 13 widgets from the same store ($7.60 divided by 60 cents)
they know ahead of time that they will do this with that same store
This means that if you’re traveling, or want to tip content producers on the internet, you will likely not use BTC and LN. If you and your spouse want to try out a new restaurant, you will not use BTC and LN. If you buy shoes, you will not use BTC and LN. ROAD BLOCKS FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS Some argue that you do not need to open a channel to everyone, if there’s a route to that merchant. This article explains that if LN is a like a distributed mesh network, then another problem exists:
"third party needs to possess the necessary capital to process the transaction. If Alice and Bob do not have an open channel, and Alice wants to send Bob .5 BTC, they'll both need to be connected to a third party (or a series of 3rd parties). Say if Charles (the third party) only possesses .4 BTC in his respective payment channels with the other users, the transaction will not be able to go through that route. The longer the route, the more likely that a third party does not possess the requisite amount of BTC, thereby making it a useless connection.”
CENTRALIZATION According to this visualization of LN on testnet, LN will be centralized around major hubs. It might be even more centralized than this visualization if the following are true:
Users will want to connect to large hubs to minimize the number of times they need to open/close channels, which incur fees
LN’s security and usability relies on 100% uptime of relaying parties
Only large hubs with a lot of liquidity will be able to make money
Hubs or intermediary nodes will need to be licensed as money transmitters, centralizing LN to exchanges and banks as large hubs
“…applicability of the regulations … to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.” “…an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter…” "An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations…” "FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.”” "The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.”
"An “informal value transfer system” refers to any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.” “…IVTS… must comply with all BSA registration, recordkeeping, reporting and AML program requirements. “Money transmitting” occurs when funds are transferred on behalf of the public by any and all means including, but not limited to, transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…regulations require all money transmitting businesses…to register with FinCEN."
Mike Caldwell used to accept and mail bitcoins. Customers sent him bitcoins and he mailed physical bitcoins back or to a designated recipient. There is no exchange from one type of currency to another. FinCEN told him that he needed to be licensed as money transmitter, after which Caldwell stopped mailing out bitcoins. ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEED FOR LICENSING Some have argued that LN does not transfer BTC until the channel is closed on the blockchain. This is not a defence, since channels will close on the blockchain. Some have argued that LN nodes do not take ownership of funds. Is this really true? Is this argument based on a technicality or hoping for a loophole? It seems intuitive that a good prosecutor can easily defeat this argument. Even if this loophole exists, can we count on the government to never close this loophole? So, will LN hubs and intermediary nodes need to be licensed as money transmitters? If so, then Bob, who is the intermediary between Alice and Carol, will need a license. But Bob won’t have the money nor qualifications. Money transmitters need to pay $25,000 to $1 million, maintain capital levels and are subject to KYC/AML regulations1. In which case, LN will have mainly large hubs, run by financial firms, such as banks and exchanges. Will the banks want this? Likely. Will they lobby the government to get it? Likely. Some may be wondering about miners. FinCEN has declared that miners are not money transmitters: https://coincenter.org/entry/aml-kyc-tokens :
"Subsequent administrative rulings clarified several remaining ambiguities: miners are not money transmitters…"
FinCEN Declares Bitcoin Miners, Investors Aren't Money Transmitters Some argue that LN nodes will go through Tor and be anonymous. For this to work, will all of the nodes connecting to it, need to run Tor? If so, then how likely will this happen and will all of these people need to run Tor on every device (laptop, phone and tablet)? Furthermore, everyone of these people will be need to be sufficiently tech savvy to download, install and set up Tor. Will the common person be able to do this? Also, will law-abiding nodes, such as retailers or banks, risk their own livelihood by connecting to an illegal node? What is the likelihood of this? Some argue that unlicensed LN hubs can run in foreign countries. Not true. According to FinCEN: "“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are…transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…” Also, foreign companies are not immune from the laws of other countries which have extradition agreements. The U.S. government has sued European banks over the LIBOR scandal. The U.S. government has charged foreign banks for money laundering and two of those banks pleaded guilty. Furthermore, most countries have similar laws. It is no coincidence that European exchanges comply with KYC/AML. Will licensed, regulated LN hubs connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. Will Amazon or eBay connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. If you want to buy from Amazon, you’ll likely need to register yourself at a licensed, regulated LN hub, which means you’ll need to provide your identification photo. Say goodbye to a censorship-resistant, trust-less and permission-less coin. For a preview of what LN will probably look like, look at Coinbase or other large exchanges. It’s a centralized, regulated and censored hub. Coinbase allows users to send to each other off-chain. Coinbase provides user data to the IRS and disallows users from certain countries to sell BTC. You need to trust that no rogue employee in the exchange will steal your funds, or that a bank will not confiscate your funds as banks did in Cyprus. What if the government provides a list of users, who are late with their tax returns, to Coinbase and tells Coinbase to block those users from making transactions? You need Coinbase’s permission. This would be the antithesis of why Satoshi created Bitcoin. NEED TO REPORT TO IRS The IRS has a definition for “third party settlement organization” and these need to report transactions to the IRS. Though we do not know for sure yet, it can be argued that LN hubs satisfies this definition. If this is the case, who will be willing to be LN hubs, other than banks and exchanges? To read about the discussion, go to: Lightning Hubs Will Need To Report To IRS COMPLEXITY All cryptocurrencies are complicated for the common person. You may be tech savvy enough to find a secure wallet and use cryptocurrencies, but the masses are not as tech savvy as you. LN adds a very complicated and convoluted layer to cryptocurrencies. It is bound to have bugs for years to come and it’s complicated to use. This article provides a good explanation of the complexity. Just from the screenshot of the app, the user now needs to learn additional terms and commands: “On Chain” “In Channels” “In Limbo” “Your Channel” “Create Channel” “CID” “OPENING” “PENDING-OPEN” “Available to Receive” “PENDING-FORCE-CLOSE” There are also other things to learn, such as how funds need to be allocated to channels and time locks. Compare this to using your current wallet. Recently, LN became even more complicated and convoluted. It needs a 3rd layer as well: Scaling Bitcoin Might Require A Whole 'Nother Layer How many additional steps does a user need to learn? ALL COINS PLANNING OFF-CHAIN SCALING ARE AT RISK Bitcoin Segwit, Litecoin, Vertcoin and possibly others (including Bitcoin Cash) are planning to implement LN or layer 2 scaling. Ethereum is planning to use Raiden Network, which is very similar to LN. If the above is true about LN, then the scaling roadmap for these coins is questionable at best, nullified at worst. BLOCKSTREAM'S GAME PLAN IS ON TRACK Blockstream employs several of the lead Bitcoin Core developers. Blockstream has said repeatedly that they want high fees. Quotes and source links can be found here. Why is Blockstream so adamant on small blocks, high fees and off-chain scaling? Small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations create demand for off-chain solutions, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. LN 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 will be the main way that Blockstream will generate revenue for its investors, who invested $76 million. Otherwise, they can go bankrupt and die. 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 bankers and politicians (former prime ministers and nation leaders). 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.” LN helps Bilderberg Group get one step closer to its goal. Luke-Jr is one of the lead BTC developers in Core/Blockstream. Regulation of BTC is in-line with his beliefs. He is a big believer in the government, as he believes that the government should tax you and the “State has authority from God”. In fact, he has other radical beliefs as well:
it is moral for the government to execute criminals and heretics (non-believers)
According to this video, Luke-Jr was the only person to have ever carried out a 51% attack, to destroy a coin that he did not like.
So, having only large, regulated LN hubs is not a failure for Blockstream/Bilderberg. It’s a success. The title of this article should be changed to: "Lightning Will Fail Or Succeed, Depending On Whether You Are Satoshi Or Blockstream/Bilderberg". SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENTS WITH ON-CHAIN SCALING Meanwhile, some coins such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash are pushing ahead with on-chain scaling. Both are looking at Sharding. Visa handles 2,000 transactions per second on average. Blockstream said that on-chain scaling will not work. The development teams for Bitcoin Cash have shown significant on-chain scaling: 1 GB block running on testnet demonstrates over 10,000 transactions per second: "we are not going from 1MB to 1GB tomorrow — The purpose of going so high is to prove that it can be done — no second layer is necessary” "Preliminary Findings Demonstrate Over 10,000 Transactions Per Second" "Gigablock testnet initiative will likely be implemented first on Bitcoin Cash” Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford At 13:55 in this video, Rizun said that he thinks that Visa level can be achieved with a 4-core/16GB machine with better implementations (modifying the code to take advantage of parallelization.) Bitcoin Cash plans to fix malleability and enable layer 2 solutions: The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet:
"fixing malleability and enabling Layer 2 solutions will happen”
However, it is questionable if layer 2 will work or is needed. GOING FORWARD The four year scaling debate and in-fighting is what caused small blockers (Blockstream) to fork Bitcoin by adding Segwit and big blockers to fork Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash. Read: Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained It will be interesting to see how they scale going forward. Scaling will be instrumental in getting network effect and to be widely adopted as a currency. Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most) (BTC has little network effect, and it's shrinking.) The ability to scale will be key to the long term success of any coin.
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? An analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). Part 3
Part 1 Part 2 So I have been subbed to /bitcoin since it had less than two thousand subs but haven't posted there in years. I think I took a break from researching bitcoin to take a foray into the world of conspiracy around 2014 and only got back in to it around the beginning of 2017 but with a bit of sense of skepticism and cynicism about everything. I think I returned to /bitcoin around that time but there had been a rift that had emerged in the community between those that said that bitcoin was censoring any discussion around big blocks but then also just censorship in general. This lead to the formation of /btc which became the main spot for big blockers to gather to talk about protocol development. Following the fork of Bitcoin Cash and SegWit (BTC) in August 2017 the camps were further divided when the fence sitters were denied their SegWit2x compromise. Many from the fence sitters then deferred back to the incumbent bitcoin as citing muh network effect, liquidity, and hashpower while some who felt betrayed by the failure of getting S2X through went to support BCH for some attempt at on chain scaling rather than through pegged side chains or Lightning Network. Bitcoin cash initially went with a modest doubling of the blocksize to 2MB but implemented some other features like a new more rapidly adjusting difficulty algorithm to protect themselves against hashpower fluctuations from the majority chain. In about July of that year I had seen what I potentially thought was someone LARPing on /biz/ but screencapped, that segwit2x which was scheduled for november 2017 would be called off and then hashpower would switch to BCH causing congestion and chain death spiral on BTC and BCH would pump massively. I was partial to the idea as the game theory and incentives on a big block bitcoin should attract miners. About a month after SegWit2x was indeed called off while the BTC blockchain was hugely congested, BCH went through a violent pump reaching 0.5 BTC/BCH on a European exchange called Kraken while it also pumped ridiculously on American exchange coinbase. Shortly afterwards the market took a giant dump all over those people who bought the top and it has since retraced to roughly 30:1 or so now. After that pump though BCH kind of gained some bagholders I guess who started to learn the talking points presented by personalities like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet. Craig S Wright by this time had been outed as Satoshi but had in 2016 publicly failed to convince the public with the cryptographic proof he provided. To which he later published the article I don't have the courage to prove I am the bitcoin creator. In essence this allowed many to disregard anything he offered to the crypto community though his company nChain was very much interested in providing the technical support to scale what he saw as the true implementation of bitcoin. Following debate around a set of planned protocol upgrades between a bitcoin node implementation by his company nChain and the developers of another client Bitcoin ABC (adjustable block cap), the two parties both dug their heels in and wouldn't compromise. As it became clear that a fork was imminent there was a lot of vitriol tossed out towards Wright, another big billionaire backer Calvin Ayre and other personalities like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Craig's credibility was disregarded because of his failure to provide convincing cryptographic proof but still people who wanted to pursue the protocol upgrades that nChain were planning (as it best followed their interpretation of the bitcoin white paper) pursued his variant, while others who followed the socia consensus deferred to the positions of their personalities like Wu, Ver, and Sechet but even developers from Ethereum and other protocols chimed in to convince everyone that CSW is a fraud. This was referred to as the hash war and was the first time that the bitcoin protocol had been contentiously hard forked. Hashpower is the CPU cycles you can commit to the Proof of Work function in bitcoin and the majority will generate the longest chain as they have the most proof of work. To win the contentious hard fork legitimately and make sure your chain will always be safe going forward you need to maintain your version of the blockchain with 51% of the hashpower on the network and force the other parties to continue to spend money on building a blockchain that is never going to be inserted in to the majority chain. As well as this you need to convince exchanges that you have the majority chain and have them feel safe to accept deposits and withdrawals so that they don't lose money in the chaos. This is how it would play out if both parties acted according to the rules of bitcoin and the Nakamoto Consensus. There was a lot of shit talking between the two parties on social media with Craig Wright making a number of claims such as "you split, we bankrupt you" "I don't care if there is no ability to move coins to an exchange for a year" and other such warnings not to engage in foul play.. To explain this aftermath is quite tedious so It might be better to defer to this video for the in depth analysis but basically Roger Ver had to rent hashpower that was supposed to be mining BTC from his mining farm bitcoin.com, Jihan Wu did the same from his Bitmain Mining Farm which was a violation of his fiduciary duty as the CEO of a company preparing for an IPO. In this video of a livestream during the hashwar where Andreas Brekken admits to basically colluding with exchange owners like Coinbase, Kraken (exchange Roger Ver invested in), Bitfinex and others to release a patched ABC client to the exchanges and introducing "checkpoints" in to the BCH blockchain (which he even says is arguably "centralisation") in order to prevent deep reorgs of the BCH blockchain. >"We knew we were going to win in 30 mins we had the victory because of these checkpoints that we released to a cartel of friendly businesses in a patch so then we just sat around drinking beers all day". By releasing a patched client that has code in it to prevent deep reorgs by having the client refer to a checkpoint from a block mined by someone who supported BCHABC if another group of hash power was to try to insert a new chain history, this cartel of exchanges and mining farm operators conspired in private to change the nature of the bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto Consensus. Since the fork there have been a number of other BCH clients that have come up that require funding and have their own ideas about what things to implement on the BCH chain. What began to emerge was actually not necessarily an intention of scaling bitcoin but rather to implement Schnorr signatures to obfuscate transactions and to date the ABC client still has a default blocksize of 2MB but advertised as 16MB. What this demonstrates for BCH is that through the collusion, the cartel can immediately get a favourable outcome from the developers to keep their businesses secure and from the personalities/developers to work on obfuscating records of transactions on the chain rather than scaling their protocol. After the SegWit fork, many from the BCH camp alleged that through the funding to Blockstream from AXA and groups that tied to the Bilderbergs, Blockstream would be beholden to the legacy banking and would be a spoke and hub centralised model, so naturally many of the "down with central banks anarcho capitalist types" had gathered in the BCH community. Through these sympathies it seems that people have been susceptible to being sold things like coin mixing and obfuscation with developers offering their opinions about how money needs to be anonymous to stop the evil government and central banks despite ideas like Mises’ Regression Theorem, which claims that in order for something to be money in the most proper sense, it must be traceable to an originally non-monetary barter commodity such as gold. What this suggests is that there is an underlying intent from the people that have mechanisms to exert their will upon the protocol of bitcoin and that if obfuscation is their first priority rather than working on creating a scalable platform, this demonstrates that they don't wish to actually be global money but more so something that makes it easier to move money that you don't want seen. Roger Ver has often expressed sentiments of injustice about the treatment of Silk Road found Ross Ulbricht and donated a large amount of money to a fund for his defence. I initially got in to bitcoin seeking out the Silk Road and though I only wanted to test it to buy small quantities of mdma, lsd, and mescaline back in 2011 there was all sorts of criminal activity on there like scam manuals, counterfeits, ID, Credit Card info, and other darknet markets like armoury were selling pretty crazy weapons. It has been alleged by Craig Wright that in his capacity as a digital forensics expert he was involved with tracing bitcoin that was used to fund the trafficking of 12-16 year olds on the silk road. There have been attempts at debunking such claims by saying that silk road was moderated for such stuff by Ulbricht and others, but one only has to take a look in to the premise of pizza gate to understand that there it may be possible to hide in plain site with certain code words for utilising the market services and escrow of websites like the silk road. The recent pedo bust from South Korea demonstrates the importance of being able to track bitcoin transactions and if the first thing BCH wanted to do after separating itself from Satoshi's Vision and running on developer and cartel agendas was to implement obfuscation methods, this type of criminal activity will only proliferate. Questions one must ask oneself then are things like why do they want this first? Are some of these developers, personalities and cartel businesses sitting on coins that they know are tarnished from the silk road and want to implement obfuscation practices so they can actually cash in some of the value they are unable to access? Merchants from the silk road 1 are still being caught even as recently as this year when they attempted to move coins that were known to have moved through the silk road. Chain analytics are only becoming more and more powerful and the records can never be changed under the original bitcoin protocol but with developer induced protocol changes like Schnorr signatures, and coinjoin it may be possible to start laundering these coins out in to circulation. I must admit with the cynicism I had towards government and law enforcement and my enjoying controlled substances occasionally I was sympathetic to Ross and donated to his legal fund back in the day and for many years claimed that I wouldn't pay my taxes when I wanted to cash out of bitcoin. I think many people in the space possess this same kind of mentality and subsequently can be preyed upon by people who wish to do much more in the obfuscation than dodge tax and party. Another interesting observation is that despite the fact that btc spun off as a result of censorship around big block scaling on bitcoin, that subreddit itself has engaged in plenty of censorship for basically anyone who wants to discuss the ideas presented by Dr Craig Wright on that sub. When I posted my part 2 of this series in there a week ago I was immediately met with intense negativity and ad hominems so as to discourage others from reading the submission and my post history was immediately throttled to 1 comment every 10 mins. This is not quite as bad as cryptocurrency where my post made it through the new queue to gather some upvotes and a discussion started but I was immediately banned from that sub for 7 days for reason "Content standards - you're making accusations based on no evidence just a dump of links that do nothing to justify your claims except maybe trustnodes link (which has posted fabricated information about this subreddit mods) and a Reddit post. Keep the conspiracy theories in /conspiracy" My post was also kept at zero in bitcoin and conspiracy so technically btc was the least censored besides C_S_T. In addition to the throttling I was also flagged by the u/BsvAlertBot which says whether or not a user has a questionable amount of activity in BSV subreddits and then a break down of your percentages. This was done in response to combat the "toxic trolls" of BSV but within bitcoincashSV there are many users that have migrated from what was originally supposed to be a uncensored subreddit to discuss bitcoin and many such as u/cryptacritic17 has have switched sides after having been made to essentially DOXX themselves in btc to prove that they aren't a toxic troll for raising criticisms of the way certain things are handled within that coin and development groups. Other prominent users such as u/jim-btc have been banned for impersonating another user which was in actual fact himself and he has uploaded evidence of him being in control of said account to the blockchain. Mod Log, Mod Damage Control, Mod Narrative BTFO. Interestingly in the comments on the picture uploaded to the blockchain you can see the spin to call him an SV shill when in actual fact he is just an OG bitcoiner that wanted bitcoin to scale as per the whitepaper. What is essentially going on in the Bitcoin space is that there is a battle of the protocols and a battle for social consensus. The incumbent BTC has majority of the attention and awareness as it is being backed by legacy banking and finance with In-Q-Tel and AXA funding blockstream as well as Epstein associates and MIT, but in the power vaccum that presented itself as to who would steward the big block variant, a posse of cryptoanarchists have gained control of the social media forums and attempted to exert their will upon what should essentially be a Set In Stone Protocol to create something that facilitates their economic activity (such as selling explosives online)) while attempting to leverage their position as moderators who control the social forum to spin their actions as something different (note memorydealers is Roger Ver). For all his tears for the children killed in wars, it seems that what cryptoanarchists such as u/memorydealers want is to delist/shut down governments and they will go to any efforts such as censorship to make sure that it is their implementation of bitcoin that will do that. Are we really going to have a better world with people easier able to hide transactions/launder money? Because of this power vacuum there also exists a number of different development groups but what is emerging now is that they are struggling for money to fund their development. The main engineering is done by self professed benevolent dictator Amaury Sechet (deadalnix) who in leaked telegram screen caps appears to be losing it as funding for development has dried up and money raised in an anarchist fashion wasn't compliant with laws around fundraising sources and FVNI (development society that manages BCH development and these donations) is run by known scammer David R Allen. David was founder of 2014 Israeli ICO Getgems (GEMZ) that scammed investors out of more than 2500 Bitcoins. The SV supported sky-lark who released this information has since deleted all their accounts but other users have claimed that sky-lark was sent personal details about themselves and pictures of their loved ones and subsequently deleted all their social media accounts afterwards. There are other shifty behaviours like hiring Japanese influencers to shill their coin, recruiting a Hayden Otto that up until 2018 was shilling Pascal Coin to become a major ambassador for BCH in the Australian city of Townsville. Townsville was claimed to be BCH city hosting a BCH conference there and claiming loads of adoption, but at the conference itself their idea of demonstrating adoption was handing a Point of Sale device to the bar to accept bitcoin payments but Otto actually just putting his credit card behind the bar to settle and he would keep the BCH that everyone paid. In the lead up to the conference the second top moderator of btc was added to the moderators of townsville to shill their coin but has ended up with the townsville subreddit wanting to ban all bitcoin talk from the subreddit. Many of the BCH developers are now infighting as funding dries up and they find themselves floundering with no vision of how to achieve scale or get actual real world adoption. Amaury has recently accused Peter Rizun of propagandising, told multiple users in the telegram to fuck off and from all accounts appears to be a malignant narcissist incapable of maintaining any kind of healthy relationship with people he is supposed to be working with. Peter Rizun has begun lurking in bitcoincashSV and recognising some of the ideas coming from BSV as having merit while Roger has started to distance himself from the creation of BCH. Interestingly at a point early in the BCH history Roger believed Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi, but once CSW wouldn't go along with their planned road map and revealed the fact he had patents on blockchain technology and wanted to go down a path that worked with Law, Roger retracted that statement and said he was tricked by Craig. He joined in on the faketoshi campaign and has been attempted to be sued by Dr Wright for libel in the UK to which Roger refused to engage citing grounds of jurisdiction. Ironically this avoidance of Roger to meet Dr Wright in court to defend his claims can be seen as the very argument against justice being served by private courts under an anarchocapitalist paradigm with essentially someone with resources simply being able to either flee a private court's jurisdiction or engage a team of lawyers that can bury any chances of an everyday person being able to get justice. There is much more going on with the BCH drama that can be explained in a single post but it is clear that some of the major personalities in the project are very much interested in having their ideals projected on to the technical implementation of the bitcoin protocol and have no qualms spouting rhetoric around the anti-censorship qualities of bitcoin/BCH while at the same time employing significant censorship on their social media forums to control what people are exposed to and getting rid of anyone who challenges their vision. I posit that were this coin to become a success, these "benevolent dictators" as they put it would love their new found positions of wealth/dominance yet if their behaviour to get there is anything to go by, would demonstrate the same power tripping practices of censorship, weasel acts, misleading people about adoption statistics and curating of the narrative. When the hashrate from Rogers bitcoin.com minging operation on BCH dropped dramatically and a lot of empty blocks were being mined, his employer and 2IC moderator u/BitcoinXio (who stepped in to replace roger as CEO) was in the sub informing everyone it was simply variance that was the reason when only a few days later it was revealed that they had reduced their hash power significantly. This is not appropriate behaviour for one of the primary enterprises engaged in stewarding BCH and encouraging adoption nor is the inability to be accountable for such dishonest practices as well. It seems bitcoin.com treats btc as their own personal spam page where Roger can ask for donations despite it being against the sub rules and spin/ban any challenge to the narrative they seek to create. Let's see how the censorship goes as I post this around a few of the same places as the last piece. Stay tuned for the next write up where I take a deep dive in to the coin that everyone doesn't want you to know about.
Bitcoin (BTC) $10,560.16-2.63%: Ethereum (ETH) $342.61-8.05%: XRP (XRP) $0.235875-4.12%: Litecoin (LTC) $44.10-6.02%: All . Peter Rizun. Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, News. Bitcoin.com Update: Dev Fund Proposal ‘Will Not Go Through’ Without More Agreement . 28 January 2020; Crypto Breaking News; The BCH infrastructure funding proposal initially announced by Jiang Zhuoer on January 22 will not go ... The subject of our piece for today’s debunking (April 21st, 2019), is a post that Craig Wright uploaded on the blogging website, Medium.com on November 26th, 2018, titled, ‘Why I troll’. In specific, it appears that Craig Wright took particular offense to a tweet from Bitcoin ABC developer, Peter Rizun. Here is a screenshot of the tweet response from Peter Rizun that Craig Wright posted ... World News; Home » Bitcoin » nChain Attempts to Silence Peter Rizun Over Craig Wright. 04/14/2018 No comments Bitcoin. nChain Attempts to Silence Peter Rizun Over Craig Wright . A company founded by Craig Wright, or very much associated with him, has apparently been using project financing as a weapon of sorts to gain implicit complicity regarding the many claims of Wright. At least that’s ... TL;DR: Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) Chief Scientist Peter Rizun is a human lightning rod. He's become one in recent months most notoriously due to his being asked for counter-arguments to the efficacy and need of a second layer payment solution on Bitcoin Core (BTC). The resulting drama with BTC and Lightning Network supporter, podcaster Peter McCormack, was amazing to watch unfold, and this is ... Bitcoin Unlimited’s (BU) chief scientist Peter Rizun says that in his opinion, BU will probably not condone the infrastructure funding plan (IFP). On January 27, BU developer Andrew Stone ...
Peter Rizun of Bitcoin Unlimited says 'There won't be BTC and BCH in five years'
BREAKING NEWS! JPMorgan Bank + 40 German Banks FOMO in on Ethereum, Bitcoin and XRP! JPMorgan Bank + 40 German Banks FOMO in on Ethereum, Bitcoin and XRP! - Duration: 20:45. A (slightly noisy) corridor interview with Bitcoin Unlimited's Peter Rizun, where he describes the origins of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and why he thinks BCH developers will keep Bitcoin (BTC) on its ... Peter Rizun visited the Coinbase office on March 16th, 2017 to discuss Bitcoin Unlimited. To own a piece of the future visit Coinbase: https://www.coinbase... The next video is starting stop. Loading... Watch Queue Peter Rizun, chief scientist at Bitcoin Unlimited, talks about SPV at Global Blockchain Developer Conference. He offers solutions to deal with SPV privacy concerns. Watch and Enjoy!