Reminder: Cobra-Bitcoin assisted and supported Theymos with agenda driven moderation that was designed to stop Bitcoin from functioning as a cash system.
Theymos implicitly said that Cobra was working with him to implement their agenda driven moderation campaign:
You must be naive if you think it'll have no effect. I've moderated forums since long before Bitcoin (some quite large), and I know how moderation affects people. Long-term, banning XT from /Bitcoin will hurt XT's chances to hijack Bitcoin. There's still a chance, but it's smaller. (This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it, and bitcoin.org)
(emphasis added) source Notes for those out of the loop:
Theymos & Cobra-Bitcoin are co-owners of the bitcoin.org domain name (source). As such Theymos and cobra-bitcoin are the ultimate deciders of what does and does not go on the bitcoin.org site.
bitcoin.org is and always was a popular bitcoin website. It's even mentioned in the white paper header. It was one of the 4 main sources of information on Bitcoin in the early days (the other 3 being bitcoin, bitcointalk.org & bitcoin.it).
"XT" refers to Bitcoin XT; a Bitcoin full node program. This was one of the first attempts to preserve Bitcoin's cash like functionality on the BTC chain by making a consensus change called BIP 101 that would automatically and predictably grow the block size over time. Bitcoin XT was the work of Gavin Andresen (the 2nd developer of Bitcoin after Satoshi and a long time Bitcoin Core maintainer) and Mike Hearn (a highly skilled ex-Google engineer who was an early Bitcoin developer and created key projects like bitcoinj).
The 1 MB block-size limit on the BTC chain was a temporary limit designed to stop poison block attacks. Satoshi made it clear that it should be hard forked out in the future. Anyone familiar with Satoshi's writings and how Bitcoin was built, designed and promoted would know that the plan was always for Bitcoin to serve as a cash system, in-part through on-chain scaling.
As explained by Jeff Garzik (another early Bitcoin developer), failure to bump the block size would predicatably lead to an economic change event and was, itself, a choice.
An uninformed question for the informed: What happens to the BTC I own if BitcoinXT is successful?
As the title states, I am very uninformed when it comes to Bitcoin. Beyond using it to buy things and store some savings I don't know much about how it works or the politics behind it and reading up seems like a monumental task, especially when it comes to finding objective information. My question is, what happens to people like me if the BitcoinXT effort is successful? Will I lose my Bitcoins? Will they become worthless? Will I even notice? I went to the FAQ stickied up top but left more confused than I was before. Sorry for being so ignorant!
Discuss the merits of adding the the following option under settings:
"Prefer latest miner flagging Bip X" in my opinion X being 101 by default but possibly* changeable. "block timeout X" Option should be off by default but a notation next to it. "this may delay your transaction up to X blocks" broadcasting to all miners if it doesn't get processed in that window For those willing to wait a little longer for their transactions to go through will have their transaction only broadcast to the last miner that produced block that supported the bip of preference. Transaction fees are not very much income however you might only need a little bit of sugar to sweeten the deal for miners counting every satoshi. This allows the consumers to have a voice at the table that is universal and doesn't require speaking Chinese or Spanish to understand.
A Beginners Guide to Bitcoin, Blockchain & Cryptocurrency
As cryptocurrency, and blockchain technology become more abundant throughout our society, it’s important to understand the inner workings of this technology, especially if you plan to use cryptocurrency as an investment vehicle. If you’re new to the crypto-sphere, learning about Bitcoin makes it much easier to understand other cryptocurrencies as many other altcoins' technologies are borrowed directly from Bitcoin. Bitcoin is one of those things that you look into only to discover you have more questions than answers, and right as you’re starting to wrap your head around the technology; you discover the fact that Bitcoin has six other variants (forks), the amount of politics at hand, or that there are over a thousand different cryptocurrencies just as complex if not even more complex than Bitcoin. We are currently in the infancy of blockchain technology and the effects of this technology will be as profound as the internet. This isn’t something that’s just going to fade away into history as you may have been led to believe. I believe this is something that will become an integral part of our society, eventually embedded within our technology. If you’re a crypto-newbie, be glad that you're relatively early to the industry. I hope this post will put you on the fast-track to understanding Bitcoin, blockchain, and how a large percentage of cryptocurrencies work.
Altcoin: Short for alternative coin. There are over 1,000 different cryptocurrencies. You’re probably most familiar with Bitcoin. Anything that isn’t Bitcoin is generally referred to as an altcoin. HODL: Misspelling of hold. Dank meme accidentally started by this dude. Hodlers are much more interested in long term gains rather than playing the risky game of trying to time the market. TO THE MOON: When a cryptocurrency’s price rapidly increases. A major price spike of over 1,000% can look like it’s blasting off to the moon. Just be sure you’re wearing your seatbelt when it comes crashing down. FUD: Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. FOMO: Fear of missing out. Bull Run: Financial term used to describe a rising market. Bear Run: Financial term used to describe a falling market.
What Is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin (BTC) is a decentralized digital currency that uses cryptography to secure and ensure validity of transactions within the network. Hence the term crypto-currency. Decentralization is a key aspect of Bitcoin. There is no CEO of Bitcoin or central authoritative government in control of the currency. The currency is ran and operated by the people, for the people. One of the main development teams behind Bitcoin is blockstream. Bitcoin is a product of blockchain technology. Blockchain is what allows for the security and decentralization of Bitcoin. To understand Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, you must understand to some degree, blockchain. This can get extremely technical the further down the rabbit hole you go, and because this is technically a beginners guide, I’m going to try and simplify to the best of my ability and provide resources for further technical reading.
A Brief History
Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto. The identity of Nakamoto is unknown. The idea of Bitcoin was first introduced in 2008 when Nakamoto released the Bitcoin white paper - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Later, in January 2009, Nakamoto announced the Bitcoin software and the Bitcoin network officially began. I should also mention that the smallest unit of a Bitcoin is called a Satoshi. 1 BTC = 100,000,000 Satoshis. When purchasing Bitcoin, you don’t actually need to purchase an entire coin. Bitcoin is divisible, so you can purchase any amount greater than 1 Satoshi (0.00000001 BTC).
What Is Blockchain?
Blockchain is a distributed ledger, a distributed collection of accounts. What is being accounted for depends on the use-case of the blockchain itself. In the case of Bitcoin, what is being accounted for is financial transactions. The first block in a blockchain is referred to as the genesis block. A block is an aggregate of data. Blocks are also discovered through a process known as mining (more on this later). Each block is cryptographically signed by the previous block in the chain and visualizing this would look something akin to a chain of blocks, hence the term, blockchain. For more information regarding blockchain I’ve provided more resouces below:
Bitcoin mining is one solution to the double spend problem. Bitcoin mining is how transactions are placed into blocks and added onto the blockchain. This is done to ensure proof of work, where computational power is staked in order to solve what is essentially a puzzle. If you solve the puzzle correctly, you are rewarded Bitcoin in the form of transaction fees, and the predetermined block reward. The Bitcoin given during a block reward is also the only way new Bitcoin can be introduced into the economy. With a halving event occurring roughly every 4 years, it is estimated that the last Bitcoin block will be mined in the year 2,140. (See What is Block Reward below for more info). Mining is one of those aspects of Bitcoin that can get extremely technical and more complicated the further down the rabbit hole you go. An entire website could be created (and many have) dedicated solely to information regarding Bitcoin mining. The small paragraph above is meant to briefly expose you to the function of mining and the role it plays within the ecosystem. It doesn’t even scratch the surface regarding the topic.
How do you Purchase Bitcoin?
The most popular way to purchase Bitcoin through is through an online exchange where you trade fiat (your national currency) for Bitcoin. Popular exchanges include:
There’s tons of different exchanges. Just make sure you find one that supports your national currency.
Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are EXTREMELY volatile. Swings of 30% or more within a few days is not unheard of. Understand that there is always inherent risks with any investment. Cryptocurrencies especially. Only invest what you’re willing to lose.
Transaction & Network Fees
Transacting on the Bitcoin network is not free. Every purchase or transfer of Bitcoin will cost X amount of BTC depending on how congested the network is. These fees are given to miners as apart of the block reward. Late 2017 when Bitcoin got up to $20,000USD, the average network fee was ~$50. Currently, at the time of writing this, the average network fee is $1.46. This data is available in real-time on BitInfoCharts.
In this new era of money, there is no central bank or government you can go to in need of assistance. This means the responsibility of your money falls 100% into your hands. That being said, the security regarding your cryptocurrency should be impeccable. The anonymity provided by cryptocurrencies alone makes you a valuable target to hackers and scammers. Below I’ve detailed out best practices regarding securing your cryptocurrency.
Two-Factor Authentication (2FA)
Two-factor authentication is a second way of authenticating your identity upon signing in to an account. Most cryptocurrency related software/websites will offer or require some form of 2FA. Upon creation of any crypto-related account find the Security section and enable 2FA.
The most basic form of 2FA which you are probably most familiar with. This form of authentication sends a text message to your smartphone with a special code that will allow access to your account upon entry. Note that this is not the safest form of 2FA as you may still be vulnerable to what is known as a SIM swap attack. SIM swapping is a social engineering method in which an attacker will call up your phone carrier, impersonating you, in attempt to re-activate your SIM card on his/her device. Once the attacker has access to your SIM card he/she now has access to your text messages which can then be used to access your online accounts. You can prevent this by using an authenticator such as Google Authenticator.
The use of an authenticator is the safest form of 2FA. An authenticator is installed on a seperate device and enabling it requires you input an ever changing six digit code in order to access your account. I recommend using Google Authenticator. If a website has the option to enable an authenticator, it will give you a QR code and secret key. Use Google Authenticator to scan the QR code. The secret key consists of a random string of numbers and letters. Write this down on a seperate sheet of paper and do not store it on a digital device. Once Google Authenticator has been enabled, every time you sign into your account, you will have to input a six-digit code that looks similar to this. If you happen to lose or damage the device you have Google Authenticator installed on, you will be locked out of your account UNLESS you have access to the secret key (which you should have written down).
A wallet is what you store Bitcoin and cryptocurrency on. I’ll provide resources on the different type of wallets later but I want to emphasize the use of a hardware wallet (aka cold storage). Hardware wallets are the safest way of storing cryptocurrency because it allows for your crypto to be kept offline in a physical device. After purchasing crypto via an exchange, I recommend transferring it to cold storage. The most popular hardware wallets include the Ledger Nano S, and Trezor. Hardware wallets come with a special key so that if it gets lost or damaged, you can recover your crypto. I recommend keeping your recovery key as well as any other sensitive information in a safety deposit box. I know this all may seem a bit manic, but it is important you take the necessary security precautions in order to ensure the safety & longevity of your cryptocurrency.
Technical Aspects of Bitcoin
Address: What you send Bitcoin to.
Wallet: Where you store your Bitcoin
Max Supply: 21 million
Block Time: ~10 minutes
Block Size: 1-2 MB
Block Reward: BTC reward received from mining.
What is a Bitcoin Address?
A Bitcoin address is what you send Bitcoin to. If you want to receive Bitcoin you’d give someone your Bitcoin address. Think of a Bitcoin address as an email address for money.
What is a Bitcoin Wallet?
As the title implies, a Bitcoin wallet is anything that can store Bitcoin. There are many different types of wallets including paper wallets, software wallets and hardware wallets. It is generally advised NOT to keep cryptocurrency on an exchange, as exchanges are prone to hacks (see Mt. Gox hack). My preferred method of storing cryptocurrency is using a hardware wallet such as the Ledger Nano S or Trezor. These allow you to keep your crypto offline in physical form and as a result, much more safe from hacks. Paper wallets also allow for this but have less functionality in my opinion. After I make crypto purchases, I transfer it to my Ledger Nano S and keep that in a safe at home. Hardware wallets also come with a special key so that if it gets lost or damaged, you can recover your crypto. I recommend keeping your recovery key in a safety deposit box.
What is Bitcoins Max Supply?
The max supply of Bitcoin is 21 million. The only way new Bitcoins can be introduced into the economy are through block rewards which are given after successfully mining a block (more on this later).
What is Bitcoins Block Time?
The average time in which blocks are created is called block time. For Bitcoin, the block time is ~10 minutes, meaning, 10 minutes is the minimum amount of time it will take for a Bitcoin transaction to be processed. Note that transactions on the Bitcoin network can take much longer depending on how congested the network is. Having to wait a few hours or even a few days in some instances for a transaction to clear is not unheard of. Other cryptocurrencies will have different block times. For example, Ethereum has a block time of ~15 seconds. For more information on how block time works, Prabath Siriwardena has a good block post on this subject which can be found here.
What is Bitcoins Block Size?
There is a limit to how large blocks can be. In the early days of Bitcoin, the block size was 36MB, but in 2010 this was reduced to 1 MB in order to prevent distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS), spam, and other malicious use on the blockchain. Nowadays, blocks are routinely in excess of 1MB, with the largest to date being somewhere around 2.1 MB. There is much debate amongst the community on whether or not to increase Bitcoin’s block size limit to account for ever-increasing network demand. A larger block size would allow for more transactions to be processed. The con argument to this is that decentralization would be at risk as mining would become more centralized. As a result of this debate, on August 1, 2017, Bitcoin underwent a hard-fork and Bitcoin Cash was created which has a block size limit of 8 MB. Note that these are two completely different blockchains and sending Bitcoin to a Bitcoin Cash wallet (or vice versa) will result in a failed transaction. Update: As of May 15th, 2018 Bitcoin Cash underwent another hard fork and the block size has increased to 32 MB. On the topic of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash and which cryptocurrency is better, I’ll let you do your own research and make that decision for yourself. It is good to know that this is a debated topic within the community and example of the politics that manifest within the space. Now if you see community members arguing about this topic, you’ll at least have a bit of background to the issue.
What is Block Reward?
Block reward is the BTC you receive after discovering a block. Blocks are discovered through a process called mining. The only way new BTC can be added to the economy is through block rewards and the block reward is halved every 210,000 blocks (approximately every 4 years). Halving events are done to limit the supply of Bitcoin. At the inception of Bitcoin, the block reward was 50BTC. At the time of writing this, the block reward is 12.5BTC. Halving events will continue to occur until the amount of new Bitcoin introduced into the economy becomes less than 1 Satoshi. This is expected to happen around the year 2,140. All 21 million Bitcoins will have been mined. Once all Bitcoins have been mined, the block reward will only consist of transaction fees.
Any computer that connects to the Bitcoin network is called a node. Nodes that fully verify all of the rules of Bitcoin are called full nodes.
In other words, full nodes are what verify the Bitcoin blockchain and they play a crucial role in maintaining the decentralized network. Full nodes store the entirety of the blockchain and validate transactions. Anyone can participate in the Bitcoin network and run a full node. Bitcoin.org has information on how to set up a full node. Running a full node also gives you wallet capabilities and the ability to query the blockchain. For more information on Bitcoin nodes, see Andreas Antonopoulos’s Q&A on the role of nodes.
What is a Fork?
A fork is a divergence in a blockchain. Since Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network, there’s an overall set of rules (protocol) in which participants within the network must abide by. These rules are put in place to form network consensus. Forks occur when implementations must be made to the blockchain or if there is disagreement amongst the network on how consensus should be achieved.
Soft Fork vs Hard Fork
The difference between soft and hard forks lies in compatibility. Soft forks are backwards compatible, hard forks are not. Think of soft forks as software upgrades to the blockchain, whereas hard forks are a software upgrade that warrant a completely new blockchain. During a soft fork, miners and nodes upgrade their software to support new consensus rules. Nodes that do not upgrade will still accept the new blockchain. Examples of Bitcoin soft forks include:
A hard fork can be thought of as the creation of a new blockchain that X percentage of the community decides to migrate too. During a hard fork, miners and nodes upgrade their software to support new consensus rules, Nodes that do not upgrade are invalid and cannot accept the new blockchain. Examples of Bitcoin hard forks include:
Note that these are completely different blockchains and independent from the Bitcoin blockchain. If you try to send Bitcoin to one of these blockchains, the transaction will fail.
A Case For Bitcoin in a World of Centralization
Our current financial system is centralized, which means the ledger(s) that operate within this centralized system are subjugated to control, manipulation, fraud, and many other negative aspects that come with this system. There are also pros that come with a centralized system, such as the ability to swiftly make decisions. However, at some point, the cons outweigh the pros, and change is needed. What makes Bitcoin so special as opposed to our current financial system is that Bitcoin allows for the decentralized transfer of money. Not one person owns the Bitcoin network, everybody does. Not one person controls Bitcoin, everybody does. A decentralized system in theory removes much of the baggage that comes with a centralized system. Not to say the Bitcoin network doesn’t have its problems (wink wink it does), and there’s much debate amongst the community as to how to go about solving these issues. But even tiny steps are significant steps in the world of blockchain, and I believe Bitcoin will ultimately help to democratize our financial system, whether or not you believe it is here to stay for good.
Well that was a lot of words… Anyways I hope this guide was beneficial, especially to you crypto newbies out there. You may have come into this realm not expecting there to be an abundance of information to learn about. I know I didn’t. Bitcoin is only the tip of the iceberg, but now that you have a fundamental understanding of Bitcoin, learning about other cryptocurrencies such as Litecoin, and Ethereum will come more naturally. Feel free to ask questions below! I’m sure either the community or myself would be happy to answer your questions. Thanks for reading!
dcrd: Several steps towards multipeer downloads completed: an optimization to use in-memory block index and a new 1337 chain view. Maintenance: improved test coverage, upgrading dependency management system and preparing for the upcoming Go 1.11 release. dcrwallet: A big change introducing optional privacy-preserving SPV sync mode was merged. In this mode dcrwallet does not download the full blockchain but only gets the "filters", uses them to determine which blocks it needs and fetches them from random nodes on the network. This has on-disk footprint of 300-400 MB and sync time of minutes, compared to ~3.4 GB and sync time of hours for full sync (these are rough estimates).
jy-p: the server side of SPV (in dcrd) was deployed in v1.2.0, the client side of SPV (in dcrwallet) is in our next release, v1.3.0. Still some minor bugs in SPV that are being worked out. There will be an update to add the latest features from BIP 157/158 in the next few months. SPV will be optional in v1.3.0, but it will become the default after we get a proper header commitment for it (#general)
Decrediton: besides regular bugfixes and design improvements, several components are being developed in parallel like SPV mode, Politeia integration and Trezor support. Politeia: testing started on mainnet, thanks to everyone who is participating. A lot of testing, bugfixing and polishing is happening in preparation for full mainnet launch. There are also a few missing features to be added before launch, e.g. capacity to edit a proposal and versioning for that, discussion to remain open once voting starts. Decrediton integration is moving forward, check out this video for a demo and this meta issue for the full checklist. Trezor: Decrediton integration of initial Trezor support is in progress and there is a demo. Android: app design version 2.0 completed. dcrdata: development of several chart visualizations was completed and is awaiting deployment. Specifically, voting agendas and historic charts are merged while ticket pool visualization is in testing. atomicswap: @glendc is seeking reviews of his Ethereum support pull request. Dev activity stats for July: 252 active PRs, 220 master commits, 34,754 added and 12,847 deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 6-10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: the month started at 40.5 and ended at 51.6 PH/s, with a low of 33.3 and a new all time high of 68.4 PH/s. F2Pool is leading with 40-45%, followed by the new BeePool at 15-25% and coinmine.pl at 18-23%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 92.6 DCR (-2.1). The price started the month at 94.6 and quickly retreated to month's low of 85 until 1,860 tickets were bought within a single period (versus target 720). This pushed the pool of tickets to 41,970 (2.5% above target), which in turn caused 10 price increases in a row to the month's high of 100.4. This was the highest ticket price seen on the new ticket price algorithm which has been in effect since Jul 2017. Second half of the month there was unusually low volatility between 92 and 94 DCR per ticket. Locked DCR held between 3.75 and 3.87 million or 46.6-48.0% of supply (+0.1% from previous peak). Nodes: there are 212 public listening and 216 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 67% on v1.2.0 (+10%), 24% on v1.1.2 (-1%), 7% on v1.1.0 (-7%). Node count data is not perfect but we can see the steady trend of upgrading to v1.2.0. This version of dcrd is notable for serving compact filters. The increased count of such full nodes allows the developers to test SPV client mode in preparations for the upcoming v1.3.0 release.
Obelisk posted three updates in July. For the most recent daily updates join their Discord. New miner from iBeLink: DSM7T hashes Blake256 at 7 TH/s or Blake2b at 3.5 TH/s, consumes 2,100 W and costs $3,800, shipping Aug 5-10. There were also speculations about the mysterious Pangolin Whatsminer DCR with the speed of 44 TH/s at 2,200 W and the cost of $3,888, shipping November. If you know more about it please share with us in #pow-mining channel.
emiliomann: stakebrasil is one of the pools with the lowest number of missed and expired tickets. It was one of the first and has a smaller percentage than the most recent ones who haven’t had the time to do so. (...) The Brazilian pool should be the one with the more servers spread around the world: 6 to decrease the latency. This is to explain to you why the [pool fee] rate of 5% (currently around 0.06 DCR) on the reward is also one of the highest. girino: 8 voting wallets now. I just finished setting up a new one yesterday. All of them in different datacenters, 3 in europe, 3 in north america, 1 in brazil and one in asia. We also have 3 more servers, 1 for the front end, one for "stats" and one for dcrdata. (#general)
On the mining side, Luxor started a new set of pool servers inside mainland China, while zpool has enabled Decred mining. StatX announced Decred integration into their live dashboard and public chat. Decred was added to Satowallet with BTC and ETH trading pairs. Caution: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.
Marina Silva is the first presidential candidate in Brazil using blockchain to keep all their electoral donations transparent and traceable. VotoLegal uses Decred technology, awesome use case! (reddit)
We continue to see institutional interest in DCR. Large block buyers love the concept of staking as a way to earn additional income and appreciate the stakeholder rights it affords them. Likening a DCR investment to an activist shareholdebondholder gives these institutions some comfort while dipping their toes into a burgeoning new asset class.
Targeted advertising reports released for June and July. As usual, reach @timhebel for full versions.
Big news in June: Facebook reversed their policy on banning crypto ads. ICO ads are still banned, but we should be OK. My team filled out the appeal today, so we should hopefully hear something within a few days. (u/timhebel on reddit)
After couple weeks Facebook finally responded to the appeal and the next step is to verify the domain name via DNS. A pack of Stakey Telegram stickers is now available. Have fun!
Meetup in Berlin, Germany hosted by BlueYard Capital. @jz_bz and @lftherios discussed open source incentivization, the value of governance and their respective projects @decredproject and @oscoin. See @issedjur's feedback here. (photos: 1, 2, 3)
O'Reilly Open Source Convention in Portland, USA. @raedah's talk was "Decentralizing decision-making on the blockchain". Read his report here and see on the photos how the Big Stakey was entertaining the public. (photos: 1, 2, 3)
oregonisaac: many open source devs at OSCON were VERY interested in Politeia and it was probably the #1 hook that resulted in lots of long conversations about what makes Decred unique from the ground up. (#politeia)
Blockchain Meetup in Faro, Portugal. Marco Peereboom gave a talk "Decred 101" and answered questions.
Meetup in Lisbon, Portugal on Aug 2. @moo31337 and @mm will be presenting on Decred with talk "Decred 101 - Governance with skin in the game". Co-hosted by The Block Cafe. Free entrance.
Meetup in Taipei, Taiwan on Aug 5. @morphymore will give a short intro on Decred.
OKEx Global Meetup Tour in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam on Aug 9. @joshuam will introduce Decred and on-chain governance and take part in a panel discussion.
Twitter: Ari Paul debates "There can be only one" aka "highlander argument". Reddit and Forum: how ticket pool size influences average vote time; roadmap concerns; why ticket price was volatile; ideas for using Reddit chat for dcrtrader and alternative chat systems; insette's write-up on Andrew Stone's GROUP proposal for miner-validated tokenization that is superior to current OP_RETURN-based schemes; James Liu's paper to extend atomic swaps to financial derivatives; what happens when all DCR are mined, tail emission and incentives for miners. Chats: why tickets don't have 100% chance to vote; ideas for more straightforward marketing; long-running chat about world economy and failure modes; @brandon's thoughts on tokenizing everything, ICOs, securities, sidechains and more; challenges of staking with Trezor; ideas how to use CryptoSteel wallet with Decred; why exchange can't stake your coins, how staking can increase security, why the function to export seed from wallet is bad idea and why dcrwallet doesn't ever store the seed; ticket voting math; discussion about how GitHub workflow forces to depend on modern web browser and possible alternatives; funding marketing and education in developing markets, vetting contractors based on deliverables, "Decred contractor clearance", continued in #governance. #dex channel continues to attract thinkers and host chats about influence of exchanges, regulation, HFT, lot sizes, liquidity, on-chain vs off-chain swaps, to name a few topics. #governance also keeps growing and hosting high quality conversations.
In July DCR was trading in USD 56-76 and BTC 0.0072-0.0109 range. A recovery started after a volume boost of up to $10.5 m on Fex around Jul 13, but once Bitcoin headed towards USD ~8,000 DCR declined along with most altcoins. WalletInvestor posted a prediction on dcrtrader. Decred was noticed in top 10 mineable coins on coinmarketcap.com.
One million PCs in China were infected via browser plugins to mine Decred, Siacoin and Digibyte. In a Unchained podcast episode David Vorick shared why ASICs are better than GPUs even if they tend toward mining centralization and also described Obelisk's new Launchpad service. (missed in June issue) Sia project moved to GitLab. The stated reasons are to avoid the risk of depending on centralized service, to avoid vendor lock-in, better continuous integration and testing, better access control and the general direction to support decentralized and open source projects. Luxor explained why PPS pools are better. @nic__carter published slides from his talk "An Overview of Governance in Blockchains" from Zcon0. This article arguing the importance of governance systems dates back to 2007. Bancor wallet was hacked. This reminds us about the fake feeling of decentralizaion, that custody of funds is dangerous and that smart contracts must have minimum complexity and be verifiable. Circle announced official Poloniex mobile apps for iOS and Android. On Jul 27 Circle announced delisting of 9 coins from Poloniex that led to a loss of 23-81% of their value same day. Sad reminder about how much a project can depend on a single centralized exchange. DCR supply and market cap is now correct on onchainfx.com and finally, on coinmarketcap.com. Thanks to @sumiflow, @jz and others doing the tedious work to reach out the various websites.
About This Issue
Thanks to the year-long stalling by Bitcoin Core, transaction processing is now unreliable. Additionally, we now have higher fees. Users will be driven away starting very soon.
The transaction byte rate is now higher than the capacity byte rate most of the time. You can see this here in the bottom graph: https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m This means a constant backlog of transactions is building. Fees are rising as a result, as you can see at the top graph. Now, Core-devs consistently say this is no problem with new wallets that estimate correct fees. But this is a fallacy. You cannot estimate correct fees for a certain confirmation time when the backlog is constantly rising. This is because wallets estimate a fee that might get the transaction included in the next few blocks, but if the fee-floor is rising high enough due to the tx byte-rate being greater than the capacity byte-rate (as is the case now), your transaction may never confirm, rendering the network completely unreliable. RBF is not really a solution for this because there is simply not enough space in blocks for everyone. This means some users will have to leave the network. The bottom line is this: A fee market will directly influence the number of people that are able to use bitcoin by kicking out people. It directly devalues bitcoin because Bitcoin becomes less usable and uninteresting since it is not a reliable currency. My prediction: Very soon we will see the first incidents where average people with "normal" transactions and "normal" fees are priced out with their transactions never confirming. Some of them will have to just give up, since there is simply not enough space for them all in blocks. Or, a major player in the bitcoin space that causes a lot of transactions will have to leave because profits sink due to rising fees. This was predicted years ago and could have been completely prevented by implementing BIP 101 last year. Run Classic/BIP 109 now so that we only have to endure this for 1 month.
Yes, Bitcoin was always supposed to be gold 2.0: digital gold that you could use like cash, so you could spend it anywhere without needing banks and gold notes to make it useful. So why is Core trying to turn it back into gold 1.0? (112 points, 85 comments)
In October 2010 Satoshi proposed a hard fork block size upgrade. This proposed upgrade was a fundamental factor in many people's decision to invest, myself included. BCH implemented this upgrade. BTC did not. (74 points, 41 comments)
what do the following have in common: Australia, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Liberia, Namibia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Caribbean Netherlands, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Zimbabwe (47 points, 20 comments)
BCH is victim to one of the biggest manipulation campaigns in social media: Any mention of BCH triggered users instantly to spam "BCASH".. until BSV which is a BCH fork and almost identical to it pre-November fork popped out of nowhere and suddenly social media is spammed with pro-BSV posts. (131 points, 138 comments)
LocalBitcoins just banned cash. It really only goes to show everything in the BTC ecosystem is compromised. (122 points, 42 comments)
The new narrative of the shills who moved to promoting bsv: Bitcoin was meant to be government-friendly (33 points, 138 comments)
PSA: The economical model of the Lightning Network is unsound. The LN will support different coins which will be interconnected and since the LN tokens will be transacted instead of the base coins backing them up their value will be eroded over time. (14 points, 8 comments)
94 points: ThomasZander's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
87 points: tjonak's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
86 points: money78's comment in Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]"
83 points: discoltk's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
79 points: jessquit's comment in Ways to trigger a Shitcoin influencer Part 1: Remind them that’s it’s very likely they got paid to shill fake Bitcoin to Noobs
IRC Log from Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - Sept 21, 2018
[14:04] Topics for the chat today: 1. Bitcoin double spend bug. 2. Max reorg depth changes. [14:04] I think that will take most of the hour. We'll then open it up for questions. [14:05] == blondfrogs changed the topic of #ravencoin-dev to: Topics for the chat today: 1. Bitcoin double spend bug. 2. Max reorg depth changes. [14:05] == wolfsokta changed the topic of #ravencoin-dev to: Bitcoin Bug/Max Reorg [14:05] Hi! I'm Forest... Forest Gump, do you want a ravencoin? [14:05] Hi all [14:05] == blondfrogs changed the topic of #ravencoin-dev to: Topics for the chat today: 1. Bitcoin double spend bug. 2. Max reorg depth changes. [14:05] Topic fight [14:05] as far as i know the double spending bug could inflate the bitcoin supply right? [14:05] like make more bitcoin that possible [14:05] than [14:06] is this correct? [14:06] it's more that the danger is crashing all the nodes [14:07] 1. Raven is also affected by the bitcoin bug. Which is what we want to discus. [14:08] blondfrogs can you tell us what you're planning to address the bug? [14:08] So, we have updated our codebase to have the bitcoin bug fix. This is going to be implemented in 220.127.116.11. We are currently making binaries and should have an annoucment by end of day today to the community. We are urging the community to update their wallets to 18.104.22.168 [14:09] ... [14:10] BTC patched it though. Wouldnt the "same" patch work for RVN? [14:10] Spot on! [14:10] No, it would not since we forked a while back. [14:10] Exactly. We patched it in the same way but we still need to get our wallets that contain the fix out so the community can upgrade [14:10] is there a todo somewhere to add auto-update functionality to the wallet? [14:11] So, we need to get the word out to get people to update. [14:11] YES [14:12] How does the patch affect future LN implementation? [14:12] Any changes that were made to bitcoin to get LN to integrate would need to be merged into Raven. [14:12] Any risks? [14:13] Fair comment. [14:13] We would love any developers that are interested in doing that work to jump in. [14:13] The fix is just changing a 'false' to 'true' to tell the node to scan for dup tx in the block. [14:14] So the auto update feature implementation is being discussed through OS stores, as a second option for wallet download ... @lsji07 [14:14] The comment in the Bitcoin code said it was slow to scan the transactions. So it will be a bit slower. [14:14] slower is better than being vulnerable [14:16] Agreed [14:16] lets talk about the maxreorg depth, people in the discord have been asking "why isnt it lower" what do you guys think [14:16] once we finish with the first one we will russk [14:16] k [14:16] no russk [14:16] lol [14:17] I saw it went back to 60. [14:17] 22.214.171.124 will be built and uploaded today. [14:18] Once the binaries are ready, Ill get it out to all of the social sites, exchanges, and pool operators [14:18] We changed the voting date for 126.96.36.199 [14:19] So it will not interfere with 2.1 release. [14:19] We would prefer that 2.0.4 and 188.8.131.52 assets do not activate as they're not 100% compatible with 2.1 assets. [14:19] == Zaaaab [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.184.108.40.206] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] [14:20] We also need the communities help to get people to upgrade to 220.127.116.11 [14:20] The protocol layer for assets changed just a bit. [14:20] Unique assets can be 31 chars instead of 30 [14:20] We saved a byte on asset creation by not encoding the IPFS length twide. [14:20] We saved a byte on asset creation by not encoding the IPFS length twice. [14:21] ipfs will be implemented natively later right? [14:21] YEs [14:21] I hope so. [14:21] awesome [14:21] So vulnerabilty patch first, then the asset layer. Same 31/10 date though for starting asset activation on 2.1 [14:21] It makes sense for us to integrate with IPFS when messaging is available. [14:22] Yes lsji07 [14:22] Until then, the IPFS hashes will be embedded and we'll "pin" the files so they stay around. [14:22] == HansSchmidt [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.18.104.22.168] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:22] == Hans_Schmidt [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.22.214.171.124] has left #ravencoin-dev  [14:22] == corby_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.126.96.36.199] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:23] do you guys have anyone working on RSK yet? [14:23] hi [14:23] sup [14:23] Any other questions about 188.8.131.52? [14:23] @russk Thats a great question for the open QA at the end :) [14:23] K, let's cover the Max Re-Org depth changes. [14:24] No, but it can be implemented with RVN the same way as Bitcoin - as a side chain. [14:24] Tron posted an article that discusses the options that were discussed. [14:24] https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-building-the-immune-system-23d077b65f71 [14:24] Hope you all had a chance to read through it. [14:25] im still voting for the lake of fire method [14:25] I think the lake of fire was my favorite too. [14:25] Agreed [14:25] I'm with ya russk [14:25] I have sourced the lake part. [14:25] We found a burning pit in Utah, but no lake. [14:25] aw [14:26] Must try harder. [14:26] The code has moved to 60 blocks. [14:26] The reason for 55 was to have "buffer" [14:26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater [14:26] I would love to hear thoughts about the solution being proposed. [14:26] Buffer isn't needed if we get all the >= and the counts right. [14:27] Or questions/suggestions. [14:27] Exchanges don't go by time, but by confirmations. Confirmations are the block count, so if it can't re-org at 60, then 60 should be a safe level. [14:27] Plus 60 is easier to explain to people than 55 because the timing is in line with bitcoin. [14:27] It might be lower, but we opted for a more conservative number. [14:27] The downside risk is a chain split on an honest/honest split. [14:28] With years of data, we could look at all the chain splits and determine the probability of a long split. [14:29] For instance, a network cable between China and the rest of the world is cut, and then comes back on line later. [14:29] I think the code decision is sound. The only way a chain split would occur is splitting the hardware links around the world. Wartime scenario? [14:29] say if 50% of nodes upgrade to the new maxreorg client and someone tries to reorg the chain there will be a big split right? [14:30] Yes. [14:30] == Raven-Fam|21005 [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.184.108.40.206] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:30] Most exchanges today give access to bitcoin funds long before 6 confirmations, so you wouldn't expect exchanges to require 60 confirms either, correct? [14:30] Although that risk exists primarily between now and early Nov. After that, we hope 90%+ will be on the asset aware software. [14:31] which is why you all need to upgrade your wallets and vote for the correct chain and tell your friends. [14:31] got it, 2.1 will be the actual client for the hardfork, correct? [14:31] The exchanges are welcome to take on additional risk. The risk decreases as the hashpower goes up. [14:31] 2.1 is the planned version number. [14:32] also, say if i am still on 2.0.3-4 will i still be able to use assets after the hardfork? [14:32] how incompatible are the clients [14:32] At that point 2.0.3-4 clients would be on a different fork I believe. [14:34] any node with version < 2.1 will fork when assets are active. [14:34] Assets activate when 90% of the blocks are mined with 2.1+ [14:34] We'll work hard to ensure exchanges and pools have updated to 220.127.116.11 first and then to 2.1 when it's available. [14:34] awesome [14:35] But we want the community to help get the word out as well. Raven needs you! [14:35] We need a raven with a US Army hat guy to get people to update. [14:35] lol [14:36] Ill ping Pathfinder and get him on it. [14:36] Only you can help assure upgrades [14:36] Any other questions/comments/suggestions on Max Re-Org? [14:37] So just to be clear- the max reorg is included in 18.104.22.168 of not? [14:37] No, it is not. [14:37] Only the bitcoin bug fix is in 22.214.171.124 [14:38] Okay, open Q&A then! [14:38] Russk go! [14:38] lol [14:39] when are you guys going to implement native bech32? [14:39] Is there time to talk about asset_name token burning? There has been a proposal for RPC commands to let an asset_token owner burn them in order to clean out unwanted asset names and reduce UTXO. That appears to be easy and relatively uncontroversial. [14:39] also anyone working on RSK yet [14:40] Bech 32 was deprecated. [14:40] Honestly don't know much about it. [14:41] is the block size going to increase to 2mb when we fork? [14:41] russk tell me more. [14:41] I thought it was the new btc address format... [14:41] it is [14:41] it allows native segwit addresses [14:41] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0173.mediawiki [14:41] Ravencoin forked in the middle of implementation of segwit, it's planned to be added with Segwit. [14:41] Raven is already 2mb [14:41] really? [14:42] i thought it was 1mb [14:42] It's part of the vote coming up on Oct 31 [14:42] ah ok [14:42] It's in there, but BIP9 has to activate first. [14:42] Yes. We've also tested that it is possible to fill a 2MB block [14:42] Or rather BIP9 voting will activate RIP2 which will increase the block size. [14:43] https://i.imgflip.com/2igmj7.jpg [14:43] do you guys have a timeframe of when segwit is being fully added? [14:43] I want you. Nice one. [14:44] and for when they have done it, you can use https://i.imgflip.com/2igmml.jpg [14:44] lol [14:44] Wow, we have a meme master in the community! [14:44] @HansSchmidt any new code would be appreciated, if you have the ability to code the rpc called please submit an PR to the repo [14:44] I can't even open Photoshop that fast [14:45] We are talking about adding anti-spam features into the wallet. [14:45] Basically, if somebody sends an asset to an address that has been already used it could be an unwanted asset. [14:45] == vap0r-XMR [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.126.96.36.199] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:46] One more meme from the master: ttps://i.imgflip.com/2igmtd.jpg [14:46] https://i.imgflip.com/2igmtd.jpg [14:46] == Raven-Fam|1781 [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.188.8.131.52] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:46] Understood. I'll look at it, but I'm more python than C [14:47] == SweetAndLow [~[email protected]] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:47] Perfect [14:47] That would still be great Hans. [14:47] im looking into implementing RSK [14:48] @HansSchmidt You don't need C [14:48] it doesnt look crazy hard, just some java stuff [14:48] == Zaaaab [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.184.108.40.206] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:48] c++ [14:48] more like c-- [14:49] == Raven-Fam|21005 [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.220.127.116.11] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] [14:49] when ravencoin client coded in assembly [14:49] == Zaaaab [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.18.104.22.168] has quit [Client Quit] [14:49] I was referring to @blondfrog new RPCs [14:49] == Zaaaab [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.22.214.171.124] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:49] I'd like to help with RSK [14:49] We would love you to help! [14:50] if you know java you can probably do it @vap0r [14:50] https://github.com/rsksmart [14:50] fork rskj and bitcoinj [14:50] Thanks [14:51] RSK would be extremely useful for bond-like implementations [14:51] assets would probably mess RSK up tho [14:51] Im off now thanks for the hard work guys! [14:52] It might be a fun merge for sure. [14:52] Thanks for joining! [14:52] == AlsoSushi [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.126.96.36.199] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] [14:52] the bitcoinj client doesnt look crazy hard to port over to ravencoin [14:52] == lsji07 [~[email protected]] has quit [Quit: AndroIRC - Android IRC Client ( http://www.androirc.com )] [14:52] you would just need to change the diff algo to DGW and make an x16r java implementation [14:53] It shouldn't be too hard. [14:53] Which channel can I disclose a vulnerability? [14:53] is it the bitcoin double spend vulnerability? [14:53] or something new [14:53] DM Chatturga on discord. [14:53] == dudeman [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.188.8.131.52] has joined #ravencoin-dev [14:53] No, on Testnet [14:53] ahh ok yea dm chatturga [14:54] Either way, you can send it to me and I can make surfe it gets where it needs to go. [14:54] sure* [14:54] Do you have a suggested fix? [14:54] Not currently, need more time [14:55] Just give Chatturga a ping, and we can talk about it [14:55] Thank you vap0r! [14:55] i am extremely curious to see what this vulnerability is [14:55] Does not impact supply [14:56] assets related? [14:56] On second thought vap0r just share it here if you don't mind. [14:56] this is testnet so its meant to be bug tested [14:57] If it's a testnet only bug then please feel free to share. [14:58] We're now on pins and needles vap0r. [14:58] :) [14:59] Any other questions while we wait? [14:59] Or another meme? ;) [15:00] Do you all like these open developer meetings? [15:00] == Mixed [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.184.108.40.206] has joined #ravencoin-dev [15:00] yea they are nice [15:00] no [15:00] lol [15:00] hahaha!!! to bad blondy [15:00] if they were on discord it would be nicer [15:01] == vap0r-XMR [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.220.127.116.11] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] [15:01] lol [15:01] there he goes [15:01] Vap0r left... [15:01] +1 on Discord [15:01] Is anyone using testnet6 yet? I built develop2 branch to get 2.0.6 to play with, but had to modify it back to testnet5 in order to be useful. Even on testnet5 there has been only one person sometimes cpu mining. [15:01] Is anyone using testnet6 yet? I built develop2 branch to get 2.0.6 to play with, but had to modify it back to testnet5 in order to be useful. Even on testnet5 there has been only one person sometimes cpu mining. [15:01] Is anyone using testnet6 yet? I built develop2 branch to get 2.0.6 to play with, but had to modify it back to testnet5 in order to be useful. [15:01] We're setting up seed nodes for testnet6. [15:02] Seed nodes are being updated. [15:02] wierd echo... [15:02] Love that you're pulling the code Hans! [15:02] im not on testnetv6 yet, i could compile the binaries and then we could play around @hans [15:02] We expect testnet6 consensus rules to be the final ones. [15:03] when are we getting testnetv20? [15:03] lol [15:03] We're working on it russk [15:03] cant wait [15:04] how can I find the seed nodes? they're added into the code updates? [15:04] == Spyder [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.18.104.22.168] has quit [Quit: Page closed] [15:04] We're done, thanks everybody. [15:04] russk -- 14 mistakes from now. [15:04] Roshii is done. :) [15:04] Did I see a request for one more meme? [15:04] https://i.imgflip.com/2igof3.jpg [15:04] one last question, when moon? [15:04] == Zaaaab [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.22.214.171.124] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] [15:05] lol @chatt [15:05] == Mixed [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.126.96.36.199] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] [15:05] == Sat_Roshii [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.188.8.131.52] has quit [Quit: Page closed] [15:05] Seed nodes are behind 3 DNS entries [15:05] Thanks all. Tron out. [15:05] == Tron_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.184.108.40.206] has quit [Quit: Page closed] [15:05] Peace [15:06] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.220.127.116.11] has quit [Quit: Page closed] [15:06] == Raven-Fam|1781 [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.18.104.22.168] has quit [Quit: Page closed] [15:06] Peace [15:06] == HansSchmidt [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.22.214.171.124] has left #ravencoin-dev  [15:06] 3 domains Ravencoin.org, Ravencoin.com, bitactivate.com [15:06] 4 dns entries per domain so a total of 12 nodes. [15:07] Alright, everybody left me. Thanks all for joining this week! [15:07] I'll never let go, Wolf [15:07] I think we'll try discord two weeks from now. [15:07] good shit guys, keep up the good work [15:08] Thank you all! We have the best community! [15:08] And definitely the best Memes! [15:08] == Zaaaab [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.126.96.36.199] has joined #ravencoin-dev [15:09] Have a great weekend.
Is there anything we can do as a community to revive Litecoin?
Hey Guys, its been a scarily quiet last few months huh? I'm trying to help us brainstorm for ways in which we could improve on Litecoins development transparency and social media.. such as here on reddit. Developers - It appears you must do something outlandish, something different.. even to Bitcoin to keep our prominence up (BIP 101?).. or maybe just get a IOS wallet to start with? Social Media - maybe a giveaway would be a good start? Lets add to this.. what you guys got?
How I learned to stop worrying and love bigger blocks
TL;DR: (1) The main driver of centralization isn't block size - it's other things such as electricity costs. One mid-size miner in Washington state has said: "Our facility spends about 80x as much on electricity as it does on internet connectivity". (2) The biggest centralization threat is actually the 3-to-7-transaction-per-second bottleneck - not a possible decrease in the number of full nodes due to bigger blocks. Tiny transaction throughput means hardly anyone can actually use Bitcoin - making it much more vulnerable to being attacked, sabotaged or shut down. (3) Big projects always involve trade-offs between multiple bottlenecks and threats, so we need to prioritize which problems we're going to handle and in which order - addressing the most serious and easiest-to-fix threats and bottlenecks first, while also trying to change the least amount of code. This is exactly what big blocks do: leave the code 99% unchanged, just increase the block size so that most people can still use the software using their existing hardware and infrastructure. More info here: https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3k6i8c/bip_101_kiss_keep_it_simple_stupid/ I have been following the block size debate for the past few months, and for a long time I was undecided, because both sides made a lot of sense. If I understand correctly, the people favoring small blocks are saying that jurisdictional risk due to centralization, presumably due to larger bandwidth requirements due to larger blocks, is unacceptable. This does seem to be a very valid concern. My home internet is actually slow, and I want to have direct access to the block chain – not to do mining, but at least to be able to directly control my wallet and transact using it. So the people who favor small blocks do seem to have a point, and do sound genuinely concerned and worried. I know I certainly felt exactly this way about this issue. Eventually however I became more convinced by the arguments favoring bigger blocks, such as the following: (1) Centralization risk is probably due more to other factors such as electricity costs, heat dissipation requirements, and other mining economies of scale - not due to bandwidth requirements due to block size. This has been convincingly argued by Mike in his blog, as well as by a miner with a mid-size operation in Washington State. https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3h6lk8/toomim_bros_supports_democracy_and_bitcoin_xt/ (2) The current bottleneck of 3-7 transactions per second worldwide itself represents a kind of centralization risk. Mike has argued very convincingly about this in his blog [I can’t find the link now – can anyone help?] saying that probably the biggest risk to Bitcoin right now is this bottleneck, because adoption by an insufficiently high number of users could mean that the powers-that-be, if they wanted to, could still try to strangle Bitcoin while it's still in its cradle - without enough of an outcry to really stop them, simply due to this arbitrarily (and dangerously low) 3-7-transactions-per-second bottleneck. (3) The only responsible approach, when dealing with so many trade-offs, is to always talk in terms of a comprehensive threat model, listing and prioritizing / ranking all (or most) of the recognized threats. An initial threat model has actually been proposed by Mike on the XT Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bitcoin-xt/threat$20model/bitcoin-xt/zbPwfDf7UoQ/4uySXHVZCAAJ This is the kind of thing that successful managers do: list and prioritize the threats, and deal with the most important ones and the "lowest hanging fruit" first. On the other hand, a lot of the arguments I've seen against increasing the maximum block size seem to be made in isolation: bigger blocks means slower propagation / higher bandwidth requirements, centralization is already a risk we want to avoid, therefore no max block size increase. Also we can compare what Adam and Peter are doing: Adam is working on an ambitious new project, Lightning Network, which will add a vast amount of new code, will require a certain kind of centralization, and we don't even know if it will work yet. Meanwhile Peter seems to be focusing on more "exotic" threats (ie, less likely ones), and is also proposing more "exotic" solutions (eg, RBF / scorched earth). This is all interesting stuff - but we should bear in mind that it has nothing to do with our top current threat: congestion. I agree that bigger blocks probably do tend - to some degree - to reduce decentralization - but this is a multi-factorial situation we're dealing with here, and there is no sense in making an argument based on a single isolated factor. We have to weigh all the factors together, and focus on the most important ones, with a clear understanding of how to move from ideas to implementations to acceptance on the network. Right now, Gavin and Mike are the only two who seem to be doing this. So these are the considerations which, after many months of reading and worrying a lot, have "brought me around" from my initial fears: (1) Mining is already centralized and the main driver does not appear to actually be block size; (2) The 3-7 transaction-per-second bottleneck is probably the biggest centralization threat we need to address right now (since it forces us to have a tiny user base – vulnerable to being attacked); and (3) The simplest approach (to prevent the network from getting congested in the near future), based on the experience of projects and programmers who have a track record of success in the real world, is to go with guys like:
Mike, who is taking a mature, managerial, comprehensive, practical approach here:
-- attempting to alleviate the worst bottleneck, -- to address the most dangerous centralization risk, -- based on a comprehensive, prioritized threat model, and -- supported by an actual software release, -- consisting of a minimal modification to a single parameter (maximum block size), -- subject to a simple and carefully designed fork trigger (two weeks after over 750 of 1000 of previous blocks).
-- who seems to have a very clear notion of what "governance" (and "consensus") really mean in a this sort of situation, involving open-source p2p software running on a worldwide network involving financial incentives. In other words, I have listened to pretty much everything from various devs and other stakeholders over the past few months, and the stuff from Mike and Gavin wound up convincing me (even though that had both quite definitely initially been on my shit list: Mike due to the passport thing, and Gavin due to the CIA thing). Meanwhile, the other offerings seem to be worse:
BIP 100 (the voting thing from JGarzik) is not simple, and not predictable - so it could be inconvenient for managers, who like to do their capacity planning ahead of time.
LN from Adam Back is still vaporware, and LN itself will be highly centralized (if and when it comes into existence) - in fact the "jurisdictional centralization risk" of LN seems (to me) to be much worse than jurisdictional centralization risk due to bigger blocks.
Peter is excellent at coming up with hard-to-expect threat vectors and unusual game theory analysis, and I think he deserves our greatest respect for this, and he is obviously helping the network. Meanwhile, on the other hand, I think I can point to two examples of what one might call "over-analyzing" or "over-engineering" from Peter:, eg: his RBF / scorched earth thing, which seems like it can mess up zero-conf stuff while needlessly complicating the protocol; and his preference to implement DoS protection by deleting lower-fee transactions, rather than random transactions (the way Mike's 0.11B fix does)
I'm not saying that Peter's stuff is necessarily wrong - I just know that if I were a programmer proposing these solutions, and if I were working under a mature and experienced manager, then the manager would reject these solutions (and eventually I'd come around to accepting and understanding why). In other words, Peter tends to introduce a bit too much complexity to the overall system, merely to handle lower-priority edge cases - both in his analysis and in his solutions - and I think experience tends to show that the simpler and more generally applicable approaches tend to be more successful. So I'm a person who was initially wary of guys like Mike (because of proof-of-passport) and Gavin (because of the CIA meeting) - and I was way more into Adam (because he's a great cryptographer) and Peter (because he is able to think up all kinds of really hard-for-me-imagine threat vectors). Later I found out that Mike's proof-of-passport would have been some kind of anonymous zk-SNARK thing - so maybe it wasn't such a red flag after all. And if I were a recent college grad living in Amherst, involved with local town meetings and such (as Gavin is), working publicly under my own name on major open-source financial software projects, and I got an "invitation" to talk to the CIA - well, I probably wouldn't be too thrilled - but I'd probably end up going and trying to make the best of it. So Gavin's meeting with the CIA - troubling as it was to me at first - might very well not be a red flag at all either. So what I'm saying is - I no longer feel paranoid about Mike and Gavin. They just seem like not-quite-radical programmer dudes, who aren't living in Belize or in a squat in London - and I feel ok using their open-source software (which is all auditable anyways). Later, after reading Mike's posts on his blog, and after seeing that he actually released something workable - and after seeing Gavin's recent video on governance - and after seeing repeated occasions where Adam and Peter have tended to focus on more-complicated solutions for lower-priority risks (and meanwhile JGarzik proposed an overly-complicated and less-predictable scaling solution with BIP 100, and Greg Maxwell has tended to engage in unnecessary attacks), I just feel that the simplest and safest next step is BIP 101 as implemented and released in the form of Bitcoin XT. Elsewhere I have also stated why I think BIP 101 = "KISS" - Keep It Simple Stupid: https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3k6i8c/bip_101_kiss_keep_it_simple_stupid/ By the way, if you are interested in forming an opinion about Gavin, I would highly recommend watching his recent YouTube video, where he gives a very decent explanation of his understanding of governance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8l11q9hsJM It's not the kind of thing that seems really possible to argue against really: he's basically saying that given an open-source p2p project, governance is pretty much various developers doing their best to release the best software, and then seeing what the network adopts. I would also recommend reading Mike’s posts on medium.com. They are well-thought-out and reflect the kind of maturity and experience you would expect from a guy who has successfully managed scaling and security issues for major software projects. https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32 https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7 Also Gavin has a very good post on his blog here: http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks I know we're not supposed to need to "trust" anyone in this situation, be it Adam or Peter or Mike or Gavin - but I do in some sense "trust" Gavin and Mike much more now than Adam and Peter. I don't think Adam and Peter want to harm Bitcoin - I think they really want to help, and have and will continue to do so. At any rate, the only thing we really need to trust is the code – and Mike’s pretty much the only guy who’s actually released code implementing BIP 101 – and it seems to be the most minimal change from the current code base, and it seems like it should run on most people’s infrastructure – so it seems like it would be the thing most people will adopt, as congestion starts to occur with the 1 MB limit. At this specific juncture - with the network starting to get congested in terms of transactions-per-second - some simple practical realistic solutions are needed, based on some simple practical realistic approaches to governance We're seeing that from Mike and Gavin more than from anyone else - which is why I feel fairly confident that the next steps for Bitcoin should and will be in the direction outlined by Mike and Gavin - again, not directly because Mike and Gavin are some how "more cool" or somehow “more trustworthy” - but simply because they recognize the natural direction a network like Bitcoin is going to tend to take anyways - optimizing the tradeoffs between the most significant threats and bottlenecks currently affecting it in the real world - and they've done the things which matter the most in this kind of situation: they've communicated clearly and convincingly about the major risks and tradeoffs involved and how we should prioritize them, as well as releasing actual working code which is minimally different from existing code and which seems like it should be able to run on most people's infrastructure, and outlining a realistic scenario for how this code could be adopted. Nobody else has even come close to this - no comprehensive communication prioritizing the various trade-offs and focusing on the most important ones requiring the least changes for the most payoff, no realistic understanding of how the development and upgrade and roll-out process for an open-source p2p financial network actually works in the real world, and no code released. The first time I actually breathed a sigh of relief in all these months of following the block size debate was when listening to Mike and Gavin's simple and realistic and pragmatic solutions. I'm also pretty sure that managers and investors who understand how major projects and markets actually work will also tend to gravitate towards Mike's and Gavin's solutions - since these kind of people also tend to favor things that are simple and realistic and pragmatic.
I talked to several "small blockists" and got 3 arguments. Want to know your opinion on them. 1) Luke-Jr spent some time to explain that Bitcoin has a serious problem right now: many miners refuse to validate transactions. Instead they build new blocks on top of the headers of unverified blocks received from other miners in order to decrease their orphan rate. SPV mining really happens. We know that amount of full nodes is decreasing because of SPV wallets. But 1Mb blocks are large and probably contribute to the problem too. Even miners prefer not to run the full bitcoin nodes. That is why it is important to limit the block size and carefully choose the most valuable transactions that should be included into the blockchain. There is a lot of work going now to optimize bitcoin and to solve this problem. It looks like "small blockists" sincerely think that BIP 101 is a populist move that could destroy Bitcoin and want to re-decentralize mining again. 2) Doubling the bandwidth every 2 years is too optimistic 3) <...>as evidenced by jtoomim's Scaling Bitcoin presentation on BIP101 propagation research <...> even 5MB is too much for the network to handle at this time. (though I don't have a link to that presentation yet, sorry... if you have one - please let me know, I'll put it here). Are these 3 arguments valid? I like BIP 101 because I want Bitcoin to have more capacity and cheaper transactions. I like its exponential curve and think that there should be no other constraints but technological. The problem is that according to the "small blockists" we are facing the technological limits right now and if we ignore them then the core properties of Bitcoin will be destroyed. Maybe if we start with 2 Mb in 2016 (instead of 20 8Mb) and then raise it ~30%/year (instead of ~40%/year) then it would be a more reasonable/safe solution. What do you think?
Don't get me wrong - I don't want to advertise a true altcoin here and get banned (hi "Thermos"...) But serious question: Imagine blockstream-core devs keep Bitcoin hostage at 1 MB (first companies already hesitate investing in Bitcoin because of concerns it cannot grow), and imagine miners remain bitcoin-core slaves and are afraid of BitcoinXT or another "non-core Bitcoin" fork that allows greater blocks, just because it is not "bitcoin-core". What if Gavin/Mike/other capacities joined the Litecoin-project (I am taking this altcoin because it is very similar to Bitcoin by design, does not compete w.r.t. Hashing-hardware, and is the undisputed number 2 decentralized crypto-coin) in agreement with Charly Lee to bring Litecoin up to Bitcoin 0.11.1 standards with all features and bug fixes, plus implemented something like BIP-101 or BIP-100.5 for sustainable block size limit growth. What would happen in the Altcoin community? I think we would witness an interesting competition of two models:
One Altcoin (namely blockstream's bitcoin-core) would play the "small blocksize card" and hope the economy will flourish with off-blockchain solutions.
Another Altcoin (namely Litecoin-core == LitecoinXT) would go all-in for sustainable growth and attract lots of creative newcomers in the eco-system.
Other than that, both projects would be very similar. Now, again there are two possibilities how it goes on:
(a) blockstream-bitcoin-core devs will remain stubburn and stand by their ideology on small blocks and "switch to off-chain technologies asap".
(b) blockstream-bitcoin-core devs will eventually, after hot discussions and lots of market cap and venture capital shifted from Bitcoin to Litecoin, switch over to the same or similar block size growth strategy as LitecoinXT-core, in an attempt to limit the damage as long as it is still possible.
In case of (a), it will be interesting if, and how fast, LitecoinXT-core would gain market share, eco-system support (wallet SW, web sites, bitcoin-companies, ...) etc. In case of (b), it will turn out that there eventually was a way to "convince" blockstream-bitcoin-core-devs and Thermos et al.
Quotes show that RBF is part of Core-Blockstream's strategy to: (1) create fee markets prematurely; (2) kill practical zero-conf for retail ("turn BitPay into a big smoking crater"); (3) force users onto LN; and (4) impose On-By-Default RBF ("check a box that says Send Transaction Irreversibly")
The real (and clearly stated) reason [of RBF] is to facilitate a fee market, which will be necessary if Bitcoin is successful, BIP 101 or not.
I agree with full RBF in the long run, as long as it's done gradually to give companies like BitPay and Coinbase an opportunity to adapt and to make use of emerging new systems like OT and LN as well as larger blocks. opt-in RBF -> 2-4-8 -> opt-in RBF with wallets opting in by default -> LN -> full RBF.
A unilateral fork then, they're [Bitstamp implementing BIP 101] not even trying to pretend they're seeking consensus anymore. If you look at the most vocal proponents of BIP 101, you'll see that they work for VC-funded companies that need massive growth within a year or so, or they'll run out of money. They're willing to sacrifice the essence of Bitcoin for their own personal gain. Talk about a conflict of interests!
What you need to know about running XT or BU instead of Core, a simple FAQ
Where can i find the software? Download BitcoinXT Download Bitcoin Unlimited Do I have to uninstall Core or install XT/BU in a separate location? Not at all, just install it where you have currently installed Core. Will I still have my coins? Yes, your coins will stay in your wallet. But always keep a backup, no matter what. What happens if bitcoin forks to a BIP 101 chain? If you run XT or BU, you will stay on the chain with the most proof of work, i.e the chain where the majority of miners work on securing the blockchain. For BIP 101 to activate, 75% of mining must support BIP 101. Whatever the case, BIP 101 activating or not, your coins are still safe if you run XT or BU. I'm not a miner, but I like BIP 101, what's the point of running XT or BU before the fork? For a fork to be successful and stable, blocks must be able to propagate under the new rules. If you activate your node status at https://bitnodes.21.co/ the rest of the network can see that you run a node that will help keep the fork alive and well. It helps with the deadlock situation where everyone is waiting for everyone else before taking action. I am a miner, and I want to mine BIP 101 blocks, but p2pool has too much variance, what do I do? Contact your local pool and let them know that you want them to activate BIP 101 mining. The more miners that do, the better chance we have. I've heard that XT has code that does [insert something bad here], is that true? If you want to know what is different from Core, you can read all about it here: https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html If you are a coder you can go to https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt and look at the changes for yourself. I have a question that isn't listed here.. Then post it here, and I'll add it to the list or expand on one of the answered questions if applicable.
Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard | Jeff Garzik | Dec 16 2015
Jeff Garzik on Dec 16 2015: All, Following the guiding WP principle of Assume Good Faith, I've been trying to boil down the essence of the message following Scaling Bitcoin. There are key bitcoin issues that remain outstanding and pressing, that are* orthogonal to LN & SW*. I create multiple proposals and try multiple angles because of a few, notable systemic economic and analysis issues - multiple tries at solving the same problems. Why do I do what I do -- Why not try to reboot... just list those problems? Definitions: FE - "Fee Event", the condition where main chain MSG_BLOCK is 95+% to hard limit for 7 or more days in row, "blocks generally full" This can also be induced by a miner squeeze (collective soft limit reduction). Service - a view of bitcoin as a decentralized, faceless, multi-celled, amorphous automaton cloud, that provides services in exchange for payment Users - total [current | future] set of economic actors that pay money to the Service, and receive value (figuratively or literally) in return Block Size - This is short hand for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, the hard limit that requires, today, a hard fork to increase (excl. extension blocks etc.) Guiding Principle: Keep the Service alive, secure, decentralized, and censorship resistant for as many Users as possible. Observations on block size (shorthand for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE as noted above): This is economically modeled as a supply limited resource over time. On average, 1M capacity is available every 10 minutes, with variance. Observations on Users, block size and modern bidding process: A supermajority of hashpower currently evaluates for block inclusion based, first-pass, on tx-fee/KB. Good. The Service is therefore responsive to the free market and some classes of DoS. Good. Recent mempool changes float relay fee, making the Service more responsive to fast moving markets and DoS's. Good progress. Service provided to Users can be modeled at the bandwidth resource level as bidding for position in a virtual priority queue, where up-to-1M bursts are cleared every 10 min (on avg etc.). Not a perfectly fixed supply, definitionally, but constrained within a fixed range. Observations on the state of today's fee market: On average, blocks are not full. Economically, this means that fees trend towards zero, due to theoretically unlimited supply at <1M levels. Of course, fees are not zero. The network relay anti-flood limits serve as an average lower limit for most transactions (excl direct-to-miner). Wallet software also introduces fee variance in interesting ways. All this fee activity is range-bound on the low end. Let the current set of Users + transaction fee market behavior be TFM (today's fee market). Let the post-Fee-Event set of Users + transaction fee market behavior be FFM (future fee market). *Key observation: A Bitcoin Fee Event (see def. at top) is an Economic Change Event.* An Economic Change Event is a period of market chaos, where large changes to prices and sets of economic actors occurs over a short time period. A Fee Event is a notable Economic Change Event, where a realistic projection forsees higher fee/KB on average, pricing some economic actors (bitcoin projects and businesses) out of the system. *It is a major change to how current Users experience and pay for the Service*, state change from TFM to FFM. The game theory bidding behavior is different for a mostly-empty resource versus a usually-full resource. Prices are different. Profitable business models are different. Users (the set of economic actors on the network) are different. Observation: Contentious hard fork is an Economic Change Event. Similarly, a fork that partitions economic actors for an extended period or permanently is also an Economic Change Event, shuffling prices and economic actors as the Service dynamically readjusts on both sides of the partition, and Users-A and Users-B populations change their behavior. Short-Term Problem #1: No-action on block size increase leads to an Economic Change Event. Failure to increase block size is not obviously-conservative, it is a conscious choice, electing for one economic state and set of actors and prices over another. Choosing FFM over TFM. It is rational to reason that maintaining TFM is more conservative than enduring an Economic Change Event from TFM to FFM. *It is rational to reason that maintaining similar prices and economic actors is less disruptive.* Failure to increase block size will lead to a Fee Event sooner rather than later. Failure to plan ahead for a Fee Event will lead to greater market chaos and User pain. Short-Term Problem #2: Some Developers wish to accelerate the Fee Event, and a veto can accomplish that. In the current developer dynamics, 1-2 key developers can and very likely would veto any block size increase. Thus a veto (e.g. no-action) can lead to a Fee Event, which leads to pricing actors out of the system. A block size veto wields outsize economic power, because it can accelerate ECE. *This is an extreme moral hazard: A few Bitcoin Core committers can veto increase and thereby reshape bitcoin economics, price some businesses out of the system. It is less of a moral hazard to keep the current economics [by raising block size] and not exercise such power.* Short-Term Problem #3: User communication and preparation The current trajectory of no-block-size-increase can lead to short time market chaos, actor chaos, businesses no longer viable. In a $6.6B economy, it is criminal to let the Service undergo an ECE without warning users loudly, months in advance: "Dear users, ECE has accelerated potential due to developers preferring a transition from TFM to FFM." As stated, *it is a conscious choice to change bitcoin economics and User experience* if block size is not advanced with a healthy buffer above actual average traffic levels. Raising block size today, at TFM, produces a smaller fee market delta. Further, wallet software User experience is very, very poor in a hyper-competitive fee market. (This can and will be improved; that's just the state of things today) Short-Term Problem #4: UseDev disconnect: Large mass of users wishes to push Fee Event into future Almost all bitcoin businesses, exchanges and miners have stated they want a block size increase. See the many media articles, BIP 101 letter, and wiki e.g. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy#Entities_positions The current apparent-veto on block size increase runs contra to the desires of many Users. (note language: "many", not claiming "all") *It is a valid and rational economic choice to subsidize the system with lower fees in the beginning*. Many miners, for example, openly state they prefer long term system growth over maximizing tiny amounts of current day income. Vetoing a block size increase has the effect of eliminating that economic choice as an option. It is difficult to measure Users; projecting beyond "businesses and miners" is near impossible. Without exaggeration, I have never seen this much disconnect between user wishes and dev outcomes in 20+ years of open source. Short-Term Problem #5: Higher Service prices can negatively impact system security Bitcoin depends on a virtuous cycle of users boosting and maintaining bitcoin's network effect, incentivizing miners, increasing security. Higher prices that reduce bitcoin's user count and network effect can have the opposite impact. (Obviously this is a dynamic system, users and miners react to higher prices... including actions that then reduce the price) Short-Term Problem #6: Post-Fee-Event market reboot problem + general lack of planning Game it out: Blocks are now full (FFM). Block size kept at 1M. How full is too full - who and what dictates when 1M should be increased? The same question remains, yet now economic governance issues are compounded: In FFM, the fees are very tightly bound to the upper bound of the block size. In TFM, fees are much less sensitive to the upper bound of block size. Changing block size, when blocks are full, has a more dramatic effect on the market - suddenly new supply is magically brought online, and a minor Economic Change Event occurs. More generally, the post-Fee-Event next step has not been agreed upon. Is it flexcap? This key "step #2" is just barely at whiteboard stage. Short-Term Problem #7: Fee Event timing is unpredictable. As block size free space gets tighter - that is the trend - and block size remains at 1M, Users are ever more likely to hit an Economic Change Event. It could happen in the next 2-6 months. Today, Users and wallets are not prepared. It is also understandably a very touchy subject to say "your business or use case might get priced out of bitcoin" But it is even worse to let worse let Users run into a Fee Event without informing the market that the block size will remain at 1M. Markets function best with maximum knowledge - when they are informed well in advance of market shifting news and events, giving economic actors time to prepare. Short-Term Problem #8: Very little testing, data, effort put into blocks-mostly-full economics We only know for certain that blocks-mostly-not-full works. We do not know that changing to blocks-mostly-full works. Changing to a new economic system includes boatloads of risk. Very little data has been forthcoming from any party on what FFM might look like, f...[message truncated here by reddit bot]... original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011973.html
It is a misconception to believe miners have the vote on what BIP will be adopted if BIP 101, 100 or something else entirely. The users & service providers, exchanges, wallet services, lending platforms and so on have equally as powerful vote if not more powerful because they have the userbase and have as much interest and incentive in the direction of bitcoin as the miners do. Even if BIP 101 hits mining majority if the majority of these services and users do not upgrade to it, it is defacto the wrong chain to be on regardless of if it has more hashing power and this is equally true for the totally insane BIP 100 proposal. The difference is you can quickly visualise what version the miners are running, where as there is no mechanism for visualising what version users and service providers are running. It would be very useful to have some recognised platform to show the versions service providers are running.
The debate has been long and drawn out but a fundamental remains: Bitcoin cannot succeed as a decentralised currency of global significance with main-chain transaction throughput capped at 2.5 tx/sec. Core Dev and Blockstream are "betting the farm" on off-chain scaling solutions. This is a high-risk gamble. Such solutions need time to develop, mature and then take main-chain volume on their own merits. The ecosystem of businesses and users cannot be forced to use off-chain solutions, they need to be encouraged to do so. Two historic opportunities have been missed for dealing with the temporary 1MB anti-DoS hack (which was only meant to last until SPV wallets became widespread). Satoshi did not expect the 1MB to be difficult to remove, and he made many large unilateral changes in 2009 and 2010. Ideally he should have made the 1MB change fail-safe e.g. If block height < 200000 then max block size = 1MB This would have meant that consensus was needed to renew the 1MB, not to remove it. But he decided to leave the project with this very limiting constant in place. When Gavin Andresen became the informal "chief maintainer" the ecosystem was growing and many other changes needed doing. As time progressed he found it increasingly difficult to obtain consensus on dealing with this limit. Even early on the mining pool DeepBit, with 50% of the hashing power, adopted a policy of "no change" for Bitcoin, making it difficult for soft-forks. 2011 and 2012 passed when it was far easier to resolve the 1MB than today. Now there are a huge number of people involved in Bitcoin with a vast spectrum of opinions. There can never be consensus on dealing with this constant, yet it has to be done. Core Dev accept the necessity for main-chain scaling long-term, but do not have a road-map in place for it, which is desperately needed. Pieter's unnumbered BIP is welcome but far too risky to ecosystem growth with its low scaling factor. The historical trend shows that block-space demand is tracking double the rate of growth which BIP-101 will permit. So, in the next decade, even BIP-101 will be squeezing out spam, unnecessary tx, and applying upwards fee pressure. https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false×pan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address= A block average size of 800KB is likely the maximum that will be seen under the 1MB regime because no matter how full the mempools get, as a backlog grows, miners will still produce the occasional empty block. Getting Bitcoin on the path for main-chain scaling, starting now in 2015, is the right decision because demand will eventually require it, yet consensus in this matter will always be a mirage.
Can we the users (and the industry players, exchanges, wallets etc) force the switch to BitcoinXT even if the miners don't agree?
We, the users are actually the parties that give Bitcoin it's value by treating it as a valuable unit of exchange in our commerce and investing. If enough of the users and the wallet providers and the exchanges support BIP 101 are we still held hostage by the miners? Or can we make a decision for them? I've seen very few people supporting small blocks, either on the forums or reddit (even on the old reddit they get voted down). And it seems the industry heavy weights are coalescing more and more around BIP 101. Hopefully the miners see the light -- but what if they don't? Perhaps the condition that 75% of the blocks mined support BitcoinXT is not that helpful of a condition. An economic majority might be much more important.
BIP status updates & BIP 2 activation | Luke Dashjr | Nov 30 2016
Luke Dashjr on Nov 30 2016: To conclude discussion on BIP 2, I have opened a pull request to implement it and mark it active. Note this implies activation and implementation of BIP 123 as well: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/478 I plan to merge this on December 14th. If there are any hard objections to this change, please bring it up on the bitcoin-dev mailing list before then. Further reviews of the implementation are welcome in the meantime. Please refrain from requesting further changes to the BIPs themselves unless it is a blockeshow-stopper or trivial (not changing the meaning). In the process of implementing BIP 2, I came across a number of BIPs which managed to get into the repository without a proper license. Authors of any of these BIPs should open a pull request adding the necessary Copyright section and License header(s). (If there are other contributors to the document in the BIP git logs, I will try to reach out to them to get permission. If you have accepted contributions from anyone not documented in git as an Author, please mention this in the PR explicitly.) These BIPs need a license: 001 BIP Purpose and Guidelines 010 Multi-Sig Transaction Distribution 011 M-of-N Standard Transactions 012 OP_EVAL 013 Address Format for pay-to-script-hash 014 Protocol Version and User Agent 015 Aliases 016 Pay to Script Hash 021 URI Scheme 030 Duplicate transactions 031 Pong message 032 Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets 033 Stratized Nodes 034 Block v2, Height in Coinbase 035 mempool message 039 Mnemonic code for generating deterministic keys 043 Purpose Field for Deterministic Wallets 044 Multi-Account Hierarchy for Deterministic Wallets 045 Structure for Deterministic P2SH Multisignature Wallets 047 Reusable Payment Codes for Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets 061 Reject P2P message 062 Dealing with malleability 064 getutxo message 066 Strict DER signatures 067 Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through
public key sorting
068 Relative lock-time using consensus-enforced sequence numbers 070 Payment Protocol 071 Payment Protocol MIME types 072 bitcoin: uri extensions for Payment Protocol 073 Use "Accept" header for response type negotiation with Payment Request
075 Out of Band Address Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption 101 Increase maximum block size 102 Block size increase to 2MB 103 Block size following technological growth 106 Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap 120 Proof of Payment 121 Proof of Payment URI scheme 123 BIP Classification Thanks, Luke original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Novembe013331.html
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
"You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
Reality check: today's minor bug caused the bitcoin.com pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
"Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
"The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
98 points: lon102guy's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
all blockchain and pricing data on bitcoinwallet.com is provided “as-is” and is to be used for entertainment purposes only, and should not be used or relied on in any way to influence or direct trading or investment decisions or funds availaibility or funds value. neither bitcoinwallet.com, nor its employees, contractors, owners, operators or data sources verify or are responsible for the ... Earlier today, popular Bitcoin exchange Bitstamp announced how they will be implementing BIP 101 in a few days. As you would come to expect, it was only a matter of time until Theymos issued a comment on how Bitstamp will be removed from all Bitcoin references, including Reddit and the Bitcoin Wiki. Brian Armstrong, CEO of record-funded Bitcoin wallet service and exchange Coinbase, plans a code update to allow for bigger blocks in the second week of December, and has indicated he prefers BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) 101.This makes Coinbase the latest Bitcoin industry heavyweight to endorse the proposal as adopted by alternative Bitcoin implementation Bitcoin XT, although the company ... In dem BIP 101 erklärte er auch, warum die Erhöhung der Blocksize keine Zentralisierung durch Datacenter zur Folge hätte. Dennoch fand er keinen Konsens in der Bitcoin-Entwicklergemeinschaft. Andresen stieß auf heftigen Widerstand und löste damit einen lang anhaltenden Krieg in der Bitcoin-Gemeinschaft aus. Bitcoin Core 0.21 brings about a turning point to the Bitcoin Core wallet with the introduction of two major features and an eventual breaking of compatibility. The landmark wallet features of this release are Descriptor Wallets and the SQLite database backend. In this article, I will be explaining what these features are, what else is changing, and what the plan for the future is.
Bitcoin wallets 101 99Bitcoins. Loading... Unsubscribe from 99Bitcoins? ... How To Make A Secure BIP 38 Encrypted Bitcoin Paper Wallet - TUTORIAL - Duration: 13:38. MrJayBusch 117,543 views. 13:38 ... Bitcoin 101 - Getting Your BTCs out of Your Paper Wallets & Cold Storage ... How to Make a Secure Bitcoin Paper Wallet (BIP 38 Encrypted) - Duration: 11:20. Hindi Trek 173 views. 11:20 . Bitcoins ... Bitcoin 101 - Intro to Paper Wallets & Cold Storage - Bitcoin Security & Fun with Sloppy Wallets - Duration: 26:57. CRI 110,444 views. 26:57. Cryptocurrency: Hype vs. Fact Anca Pop ... - Get two-factor authentication (2FA) to protect your Bitcoin wallet. In this video, I'll show you how to: - Get a Bitcoin wallet using blockchain.info so that you have somewhere to put your bitcoins. Bitcoin 101 - Getting Your BTCs out of Your Paper Wallets & Cold Storage ... How To Make A Secure BIP 38 Encrypted Bitcoin Paper Wallet - TUTORIAL - Duration: 13:38. MrJayBusch 117,403 views. 13 ...