Gavin Andresen - WikiMili, The Best Wikipedia Reader

Gavin Andresen on Twitter -"I think a lot of #bitcoin developers and pundits are suffering from anchoring bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring"

Gavin Andresen on Twitter - submitted by coincrazyy to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

Hey Zcashers! I need some feedback. Are these Strengths and Weaknesses an accurate representation of the project?

My team at CryptoEQ.io and I have been working on a profile for ZCash and we would love to get some feedback from people in the ZCash community. Specifically, are these strengths and weaknesses a good, high-level representation of the project to someone new to Zcash? Do you disagree with any specific points or what would you like to see included? What do you believe are the most important strengths and weaknesses of ZCash? We rank various coins including Monero on our site if anyone would like to check it out and see how ZCash stacks up! Thanks for the help!
Strengths
Weaknesses
[This was pulled from CryptoEQ.io, I'm part of the marketing team for full disclosure]
submitted by CryptoJoeee to zec [link] [comments]

AMA: Ask Mike Anything

Hello again. It's been a while.
People have been emailing me about once a week or so for the last year to ask if I'm coming back to Bitcoin now that Bitcoin Cash exists. And a couple of weeks ago I was summoned on a thread called "Ask Mike Hearn Anything", but that was nothing to do with me and I was on holiday in Japan at the time. So I figured I should just answer all the different questions and answers in one place rather than keep doing it individually over email.
Firstly, thanks for the kind words on this sub. I don't take part anymore but I still visit occasionally to see what people are talking about, and the people posting nice messages is a pleasant change from three years ago.
Secondly, who am I? Some new Bitcoiners might not know.
I am Satoshi.
Just kidding. I'm not Satoshi. I was a Bitcoin developer for about five years, from 2010-2015. I was also one of the first Bitcoin users, sending my first coins in April 2009 (to SN), about 4 months after the genesis block. I worked on various things:
You can see a trend here - I was always interested in developing peer to peer decentralised applications that used Bitcoin.
But what I'm best known for is my role in the block size debate/civil war, documented by Nathaniel Popper in the New York Times. I spent most of 2015 writing extensively about why various proposals from the small-block/Blockstream faction weren't going to work (e.g. on replace by fee, lightning network, what would occur if no hard fork happened, soft forks, scaling conferences etc). After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks. They also convinced the miners and wider community to do nothing for years, resulting in the eventual overload of the main network.
I left the project at the start of 2016, documenting my reasons and what I expected to happen in my final essay on Bitcoin in which I said I considered it a failed experiment. Along with the article in the New York Times this pierced the censorship, made the wider world aware of what was going on, and thus my last gift to the community was a 20% drop in price (it soon recovered).

The last two years

Left Bitcoin ... but not decentralisation. After all that went down I started a new project called Corda. You can think of Corda as Bitcoin++, but modified for industrial use cases where a decentralised p2p database is more immediately useful than a new coin.
Corda incorporates many ideas I had back when I was working on Bitcoin but couldn't implement due to lack of time, resources, because of ideological wars or because they were too technically radical for the community. So even though it's doesn't provide a new cryptocurrency out of the box, it might be interesting for the Bitcoin Cash community to study anyway. By resigning myself to Bitcoin's fate and joining R3 I could go back to the drawing board and design with a lot more freedom, creating something inspired by Bitcoin's protocol but incorporating all the experience we gained writing Bitcoin apps over the years.
The most common question I'm asked is whether I'd come back and work on Bitcoin again. The obvious followup question is - come back and work on what? If you want to see some of the ideas I'd have been exploring if things had worked out differently, go read the Corda tech white paper. Here's a few of the things it might be worth asking about:
I don't plan on returning to Bitcoin but if you'd like to know what sort of things I'd have been researching or doing, ask about these things.
edit: Richard pointed out some essays he wrote that might be useful, Enterprise blockchains for cryptocurrency experts and New to Corda? Start here!
submitted by mike_hearn to btc [link] [comments]

Long-run favors BTC over BCH, here's why...

There are many reasons why BTC will remain the gold standard and not BCH.
BTC Advantages over BCH:
BCH has:
I have been watching Bitcoin for a long time, and the main thing I've learned is don't overreact to flashes in the pan, weak hands, and anytime a "panic" is happening. What really pays in the long-run is sticking with things that have a proven track record, a high quality set of software engineers and computer scientists, and a critical mass of ecosystem. Nothing compares to Bitcoin in these regards!!
Bitcoin has a very bright future ahead!
submitted by fortunative to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.

I noticed a lot of people mentioning Bilderberg's connection to AXA and BlockStream, recently with Jeff Berwick's two videos going viral as seen here and here. It has been something I have been trying to warn people of for a while, and if you don't know what Bilderberg is you really need to watch this excellent documentary about it. The current chairman of the Bilderberg steering committee Henri de Castries was also CEO of AXA until he announced retirement in 2016. AXA is one of the main funders of BlockStream and Bitcoin Core development. As one of the biggest insurance companies in the world AXA also benefits from the legacy too-big-to-fail bailout system, and Bitcoin is a threat to their way of life. AXA are also funding technocratic totalitarian smart cities, where they team up with governments for full control. It is not surprising that they would want to get their fingers into Bitcoin.
Now lets dig a little deeper. About 6 or 7 years ago, right before Satoshi disappeared, Gavin Andresen was invited to speak at the CIA. He got an invitation directly from In-Q-Tel the CIA's venture capitalist funding arm. Gavin mentions how In-Q-Tel reached directly out to him in this video @ 13sec mark (I am not endorsing the rest of the content of this video). In-Q-Tel basically helps fund and invest in companies that help equip the CIA with the latest information technology and capabilities. You can look on In-Q-Tel's website and see that they publicly invest in many innovative tech companies. Some of these are public, there are no crypto companies listed, but they also at times make private investments as well. Makes you wonder because they were interested enough to phone up Gavin Andresen personally and invite him for a speech, so in my opinion its highly likely they are investing somewhere in this space, and for what ends? We don't know. We do know that certain companies have captured the Core developers, and blocked common sense progress on Bitcoin, and that should be alarming.
Further evidence that shows some type of coordination between these groups comes from Peter Thiel who has recently advocated against Bitcoin as a cash system, and instead is pushing it as a settlement system, the same narrative of BlockStream Core. It may also be interesting to know that Peter Thiel has also attended Bilderberg regularly and defends Bilderberg's secretive nature. Thiel also is partnering with In-Q-Tel and the CIA with his company Palantir, which spies on everybody. It is also interesting that at least one other VC funding firm Khosla Ventures invested in BlockStream, and also in the past has helped fund other companies that are working with In-Q-Tel. This was just from some quick research, only scratching the surface.
I find these connections somewhat alarming, considering all of the community attacks I have seen going on. Its possible that some groups are trying to strangle and control and co-opt Bitcoin. It would make sense that they might try to force everyone off of the old model by jacking up fees, so users are herded onto something new in a 2nd layer solution that is more easily controlled. I believe segwit allows them to create an open door for trying to encourage Bitcoiners to move into their system, and the high fees is what they hope pushes users through that door. This is probably why we see so many attempts to move away from Satoshi's vision and the whitepaper. Its why we see such a lack of common sense to simply raise the blocksize capacity. Its why we see such draconian censorship, dirty tricks, lies, and diabolical political tactics. Ultimately I don't want to draw any final conclusions, but I feel these facts should be brought to the table for people to decide for themselves.
submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

How Bitcoin BTC Was Hijacked, and Why Bitcoin Cash Was Created.

From 2009-2015, Bitcoin BTC was run by programmers like Satoshi Nakamoto, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and promoted by people like Roger Ver. Most in this community tended to lean libertarian, and liked Bitcoin BTC's potential to take power away from governments & central banks.
Satoshi left the project. In the spirit of openness & freedom, Gavin & Mike naively made the mistake of letting too many bad actors (like Blockstream) gain access to the Bitcoin BTC project.
The Blockstream side had more money, and they had Theymos (who controls the #1 & #2 Bitcoin communities - rBitcoin & BitcoinTalk.org). As a result, they were able to push enough of the community into believing that small blocks were the way to go.
As Gavin & Mike were being pushed out, they tried to create the first "big block" fork of Bitcoin, called Bitcoin XT. The Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side hired a botnet operator to DDoS Bitcoin XT to death in its infancy.
From Mike Hearn:
"..After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks.."
Gavin & Mike were pushed out.
Even Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, was censored by rBitcoin back in 2015:
"I just unsubscribed rBitcoin and subscribed /btc" - Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase (largest fiat gateway for crypto), Nov 2015
Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin talks about the absurd censorship on rBitcoin:
By 2016, the Bilderberg Group & AXA funded Blockstream, and the takeover was complete.
Any talk about "big blocks" and "low fees" was banned.
In August 2017, another attempt to create a "big block" fork happened, thus creating Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And learning from the defeat of Bitcoin XT, this time around, Bitcoin Cash made sure they had the support of big miners, so the Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side couldn't use a botnet to DDoS it to death in the cradle.
So that is where we are today.
submitted by normal_rc to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

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

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

Please audit my explanation of how Bitcoin BTC was hijacked, and why Bitcoin Cash was created.

How Bitcoin BTC Was Hijacked, and Why Bitcoin Cash Was Created.
From 2009-2015, Bitcoin BTC was run by programmers like Satoshi Nakamoto, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and promoted by people like Roger Ver. Most in this community tended to lean libertarian, and liked Bitcoin BTC's potential to take power away from governments & central banks.
Satoshi left the project. In the spirit of openness & freedom, Gavin & Mike naively made the mistake of letting too many bad actors (like Blockstream) gain access to the Bitcoin BTC project.
The Blockstream side had more money, and they had Theymos (who controls the #1 & #2 Bitcoin communities - rBitcoin & BitcoinTalk.org). As a result, they were able to push enough of the community into believing that small blocks were the way to go.
As Gavin & Mike were being pushed out, they tried to create the first "big block" fork of Bitcoin, called Bitcoin XT. The Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side hired a botnet operator to DDoS Bitcoin XT to death in its infancy.
From Mike Hearn:
"..After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks.."
Gavin & Mike were pushed out.
Even Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, was censored by rBitcoin back in 2015:
"I just unsubscribed rBitcoin and subscribed /btc" - Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase (largest fiat gateway for crypto), Nov 2015
Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin talks about the absurd censorship on rBitcoin:
By 2016, the Bilderberg Group & AXA funded Blockstream, and the takeover was complete.
Any talk about "big blocks" and "low fees" was banned.
In August 2017, another attempt to create a "big block" fork happened, thus creating Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And learning from the defeat of Bitcoin XT, this time around, Bitcoin Cash made sure they had the support of big miners, so the Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side couldn't use a botnet to DDoS it to death in the cradle.
So that is where we are today.
https://www.yours.org/content/how-bitcoin-btc-was-hijacked--and-why-bitcoin-cash-was-created-24c7314b8b8f
submitted by normal_rc to btc [link] [comments]

The Dirty, Nasty History of Bitcoin

From 2009-2015, Bitcoin BTC was run by programmers like Satoshi Nakamoto, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and promoted by people like Roger Ver. Most in this community tended to lean libertarian, and liked Bitcoin BTC's potential to take power away from governments & central banks.
Satoshi left the project. In the spirit of openness & freedom, Gavin & Mike naively made the mistake of letting too many bad actors (like Blockstream) gain access to the Bitcoin BTC project.
The Blockstream side had more money, and they had Theymos (who controls the #1 & #2 Bitcoin communities - rBitcoin & BitcoinTalk.org). As a result, they were able to push enough of the community into believing that small blocks were the way to go.
As Gavin & Mike were being pushed out, they tried to create the first "big block" fork of Bitcoin, called Bitcoin XT. The Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side hired a botnet operator to DDoS Bitcoin XT to death in its infancy.
From Mike Hearn:
"..After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks.."
Gavin & Mike were pushed out.
Even Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, was censored by rBitcoin back in 2015:
"I just unsubscribed rBitcoin and subscribed /btc" - Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase (largest fiat gateway for crypto), Nov 2015
Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin talks about the absurd censorship on rBitcoin:
By 2016, the Bilderberg Group & AXA funded Blockstream, and the takeover was complete.
Any talk about "big blocks" and "low fees" was banned.
In August 2017, another attempt to create a "big block" fork happened, thus creating Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And learning from the defeat of Bitcoin XT, this time around, Bitcoin Cash made sure they had the support of big miners, so the Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side couldn't use a botnet to DDoS it to death in the cradle.
So that is where we are today.
submitted by normal_rc to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I think BIP 101 is the best block size scaling solution because...

submitted by peoplma to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.

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

What’s the connection between Satoshi and Gavin Andresen?

What have you stumbled across? Is it assumed they only met “online” because both contributed to bitcoin code on source forge?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen
submitted by rallymedia to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

This is the type of propaganda and manipulation that makes people upset and why many people are angry with the core side of the debate

I keep seeing in r\Bitcoin and even posted here yesterday and on Twitter too, that everyone is saying this one liner trying to paint Roger Ver in a negative light during the WhalePool debate. They keep posting this (emphasis mine):
"I suppose at this point because I feel that the current Core team hasn't listened to me enough"
You can see posts like this here https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5iek7f/roger_ver_is_against_segwit_because_the_core_team/
Notice they keep trying to make it seem Roger said "me" me me. It's getting spread all over the place. The fact of the matter is if you listen to the talk online, Roger DOES NOT SAY THIS!
I'm guessing they are getting this from the transcript of the debate that is being floated around by Bitcoin Core developer u/kanzure. It was written by him. You can read the transcript here: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/2016-12-14-whalepool/ (archived https://archive.is/2xqMS#selection-353.0-353.49)
These are the main parts in question (I emphasized the parts where kanzure writes "me"):
RV: As I said earlier, I am a bit agnostic on the whole thing. I guess one of my biggest complaints or things that I'm upset about is the censorship that goes on in bitcoin. I'm glad that Whalepool here is giving an opportunity for both sides to be heard. A lot of people in the general bitcoin dabblers or people who are just mildly interested in bitcoin go to reddit and get their news, I think the fact that people getting only one side of the opinion there, I think that's done a big disservice to both sides of my scaling debate. I think a lot of segwit supporters thought that it would have 95% support overnight, and it turned out to not be the case. I think that's a problem for both sides of the issue. One of the things that I would like to see from the Core side and the Core supporters, and I agree that you guys are not theymos and not his mom, but I think people should speak out against theymos and speak out in favor of people posting whatever they want on bitcoin. One of the things that concerns me the most is that I want bitcoin to be a free and open transaction platform where you don't need permission or money to authorize transactions. If people working on bitcoin aren't willing to step up and say bitcoin should operate a certain way, then it makes me hesistant to trust them to maintain bitcoin the way I want them to, without having to get authorization from someone. So if we want to start healing my divide and ending the animosity on both sides, then I think the very very very first step for that would be for people to speak out against theymos on bitcoin and until that happens I'm going to continue to see animosity and the vitriol online. In the early days of bitcoin, it was just one giant lovefest and everyone knew we were going to change the entire world for the better. There's not as much of that lovefest online, and I would like to see that again. I would like to see more people speaking out against theymos on bitcoin moderation. I am agnostic on the segwit question. I don't have enough hashpower to block it. I won't be the lone hold-out if I have 6% at the end.
???: You're an influential voice, Roger. It's here right now. It has undeniable benefits. We can list them. I think that segwit would dramatically benefit at the chance of activation whic hI think is a good idea, it's well tested and it might not be what you want, it's just one step towards more solutions down the road, but your endorsement would go a long way towards convincing miners to start signalling for it. Would you be willing to endorse segwit, and if not, why not?
RV: I'm willing to consider endorsing segwit. I suppose the reason why I'm not going to endorse segwit today is mainly because I feel like the current Core team never listened to my business community using bitcoin.
pgp: that has nothing to do with the code that's there and ready right now. I understand your points about theymos. I think there's moderation in bitcoin. Theymos is not a Core developer. The core devs... you can't say Core didn't listen. There was an ongoing attempt at discussion on the mailing list-- they were working on this problem. It's here now. It doesn't matter how we got here. We have to think about the future. It's a product here, now, it's well tested. It seems to me that it would be a real shame for it to not activate or to delay activation. Why?
RV: I suppose at this point because I feel that the current Core team hasn't listened to me enough. I feel like they didn't listen to the Coinbase, Blockchain.info and the businesses that are bringing bitcoin to the masses. It takes both sides of the equation here, the business side and the technical side to make the protocol robust. I think they pushed out Gavin Andresen who has been treated horribly. I think that's a shame. This is the guy that Satoshi allegedly handed control of the project to. At this point I wouldn't feel bad if additional competing development teams started to rival Core's position.
Listen for yourself what Roger Ver actually says! I updated the transcription from above with the corrections below, where Roger clearly did not say what kanzure wrote. Was this an intentional manipulation or a mistake? I'm not sure, but this is being twisted into something by the trolls from r\Bitcoin!
RV: I'm willing to consider endorsing segwit. I suppose the reason why I'm not going to endorse segwit today is mainly because I feel like the current Core team didn't listen at all to the actual business community using Bitcoin.
RV: I suppose at this point because I feel that the current Core team hasn't listened enough. I feel like they didn't listen to the Coinbase, Blockchain.info and the businesses that are bringing bitcoin to the masses. It takes both sides of the equation here, the business side and the technical side to make the protocol robust. I think they pushed out Gavin Andresen who has been treated horribly. I think that's a shame. This is the guy that Satoshi allegedly handed control of the project to. At this point I wouldn't feel bad if additional competing development teams started to rival Core's position.
submitted by increaseblocks to btc [link] [comments]

The true current state of Bitcoin

Blockstream was not created to cripple and takeover Bitcoin, and then force users onto their own solutions which they could profit off of. Blockstream is not interested in profit.
Blockstream's sole reason of existence is to control/cripple Bitcoin for the government, or big banks, or both.
The U.S. government is extremely corrupt. Reddit accidentally identified Eglin Air Force Base as the most Reddit addicted "city". This blog post was later removed, and then eventually restored, probably so as not to raise suspicion. The U.S. government, specifically the CIA, has a long history of using propaganda methods to sway the opinion of the masses. Operation Mockingbird was a large scale CIA program that attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. It's likely the CIA still uses these techniques, as Anderson Cooper, primary anchor of CNN news, was revealed to have interned at the CIA in college.
Do not underestimate the corruption of the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba.
Right before Satoshi disappeared, Gavin Andresen was invited to speak at the CIA. He got an invitation directly from In-Q-Tel (the CIA's venture capitalist funding arm). Gavin admits that In-Q-Tel reached out to him directly in this video. (Please read this post by cryptorebel for more information)
I believe that Blockstream is somehow connected to the CIA, and is a "front" for their operation to control/limit Bitcoin. Mark my words, Blockstream is not simply a corporation that has a "different vision" for how to scale Bitcoin, and Blockstream is also not a "greedy" corporation that wishes to profit off Bitcoin. They exist SOLELY to cripple and control Bitcoin.
Let's also not forget Blockstream's real ties to the Bilderberg group.
UASF and NO2X were obvious astroturfing campaigns. Many were real shills, but there were also a huge amount of "useful idiots" that lacked the critical thinking skills to understand that what they were fighting for was bullshit.
The U.S. government is fighting a war on cash, and wishes to eventually remove the $100 bill from circulation. The government is not happy that people are able to use cash anonymously to pay each other. The government wants to be in control of all the finances of every single citizen, which is why we are slowly moving towards a cashless society.
THIS is why the government hates Bitcoin and is actively trying to turn it into a settlement layer instead of a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Bitcoin once had that power to change the world. Bitcoin Cash exists to do just that.
The reason Bitcoin Cash is attacked so much is because it is a MAJOR threat. You don't see people attacking Dogecoin so vehemently. Dogecoin is not a threat. Bitcoin Cash is a threat and has the power to change life as we know it.
submitted by BitAlien to btc [link] [comments]

Block size limit debate history lesson

Pre 2013
Bitcoin users and developers have near universal agreement that the block size limit is a temporary feature must be raised and/or removed. Preparing for this hard fork is one of lead developer Gavin's top priorities.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE has always been planned to increase as needed. That limitation should be ignored. theymos 17:15, 4 March 2011 (GMT)
What Theymos said. Increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE will be done when "lightweight, header-only" client mode is done. Until then, block size has to be kept under control.--Gavin Andresen 00:19, 5 March 2011 (GMT)
However development priorities are not very unified, as noted by one observer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122013.msg1390298#msg1390298
When I joined this forum I was completely wrong calling the Bitcoin core development team "Bitcoin bunker". Now that I understand the situation better I know that there's no single bunker. There are numerous one-or-two-person cubbyholes that may occasionally form the aliances to shoot at the occupant of another cubbyhole. The situation conforms better to the distributed paradigm inherent in the design of Bitcoin.
2013
For the first time in Bitcoin's history, arguments begin to erupt regarding the desirability of increasing the block size limit.
Many of the proponents in favor of making the block size limit permanent are investors in competing currencies/payment systems and this fact was not lost on observers of the era and can easily be confirmed by viewing the profiles of the participants:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221111.0;all
In May of 2013, Peter Todd funds the production of a propaganda video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
None of the claims in this video are true, but it is effective in creating drama. Tensions rise and development work grinds nearly to a halt due to infighting.
BTC market share is 95%.
In December, Gregory Maxwell begins to revive the idea of sidechains along with Adam Back, TheBlueMatt, and other individuals who will go on to form Blockstream.
They begin promoting sidechains as an alternative to Bitcoin scaling.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140226095319/http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2013-12-18.txt
2014
April 7: Unwilling to deal with the drama any further, Gavin steps down as lead developer. At the time the BTC market share is 90%.
Sidechain discussion is well underway, yet a few people still manage to speak up to point out that sidechains should not be treated as an alternative to scaling Bitcoin. You may notice some familiar posters in these threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=566704.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0;all
In October, Blockstream.com publishes their sidechain whitepaper:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=831527.0;all
The response is underwhelming.
On November 17, Blockstream announces the securing of $21 million in seed funding.
BTC market share is 91%.
2015
On June 22, Gavin Andresen proposes BIP101 to increase the block size limit as the conclusion of his work performed since stepping down as lead developer.
On August 6, Mike Hearn announces BitcoinXT, a full node implementation that includes BIP101.
Many Blockstream employees, including Adam Back, call this effort a "coup", a claim that can not be made without admitting they believe themselves to be the legitimate rulers of Bitcoin.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup
In October, Blockstream employee Pieter Wuille proposes "Segregated Witness":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1210235.0
Post-2015
This is the time period most Bitcoin users are familiar with, which really only represents the tail end of a five year long fight to prevent the planned block size limit increase.
The BTC market share has been steadily dropping since the anti-scaling propaganda began in late 2012/early 2013.
It currently stands at 66%.
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/
submitted by ABlockInTheChain to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

"The Community Has Spoken"

Another frequent small-block talking point is that "the community has spoken." Give it up, guys. You tried pushing for bigger blocks, and failed. Obviously the community doesn't agree with you.
/btc and the bigger-blocks camp at large are frequently portrayed as a lunatic fringe element that is either terribly misguided (at best), or hellbent on Bitcoin's destruction (at worst). We're just a bunch of rabble-rousing trolls, and not real bitcoin users.
When the censorship of /bitcoin and bitcointalk.org is mentioned, the criticism is dismissed by saying:
If we take a look at some other metrics of user opinion, we can find:
What makes more sense: every bitcoin website with the exception of the censored, walled gardens of /bitcoin and bitcointalk are overrun with trolls (who have verified identities and hold a lot of Bitcoin), or that the "real community consensus" myth is a falsehood that is only enabled through the censorship policies of theymos on the sites he controls?
By the logic of many bitcoin community members, /bitcoin is simultaneously an "irrelevant forum" while also being the only place that the true opinions of the bitcoin community are represented. Obviously the "real bitcoiners" have all decided to stay away from sites like bitcoin.consider.it and Bitcoinocracy and uncensored bitcoin forums ("because TROLLS!"), and meanwhile the trolls have purchased $75,000,000 worth of bitcoin to rig the vote on Bitcoinocracy against Core. Only through the censorship strong moderation policies of Theymos can the fragile and delicate minds of "the community" be protected from THE DANGEROUS TROLLS who wish to destroy bitcoin by hoping that it remains a cheap and fast payment mechanism that can be used by more people than it currently is capable of supporting.
Obviously "the community" does not include guys like:
Thankfully we have real bitcoiners like theymos, Gregory Maxwell, and Adam Back (who basically invented bitcoin!) in charge now.
Thanks to real bitcoiners like these, we are seeing "the community" come together to oust dangerous individuals like the aforementioned trolls, and with the financial backing of long standing Bitcoin proponents such as the second most powerful transnational corporation in the world, who have loudly and clearly done much to build the bitcoin economy over the years and have much to gain from seeing a leaderless and decentralized currency that cannot be controlled by anyone take to the mainstream, Bitcoin is finally entering it's golden age. The entire community agrees.
* But please note that if you disagree, you will be banned for trolling.

EDIT: I cross-posted this to /bitcoin, but because I'm a big ol' troll my post was "moderated." Keep up the great work, theymos!
http://i.imgur.com/lhahcNJ.png
submitted by BeijingBitcoins to btc [link] [comments]

"I currently wear the lead developer hat" - Gavin Andresen

Software projects need leaders. There are times decisions must be made. I want to emphasize it's not picking the best decision 100% of the time that's key. It's the ability to make a decision.
Possibly the most cherished aspect of "Bitcoin" is decentralization. It's a powerful concept, because it ensures a degree of fairness for all participants as no entity can easily co-opt and/or corrupt the situation. So we recognize decentralization as important, but I warn against thinking it's the end all, be all solution to everything. It isn't. It doesn't work in every case. Even in Evolution we see clear winners, decisions being made. Some genes win while others are abandoned. Everything doesn't remain equal. Similarly, completely decentralized development of some project, whether a company or a software application, doesn't work with precisely equal peers. There must be some hierarchy for progress to be made. Otherwise, what happens when a disagreement on a point comes up? With equal peers there are only two possibilities: stall everything, or fork/separate. For a multi-billion dollar project like Bitcoin Cash, clearly neither of those happening is desirable.
Not everyone entered the community at the same time nor followed developments closely, so let me recap some history.
Most know Satoshi led the project from the outset, but not everyone realizes Gavin Andresen led it for probably its most critical growth stage (the time between pennies to $10). During this time key, fundamental functionality was built in, with bugs fixed and improvements made along the way. As is inevitable disagreement among volunteer developers broke out to varying degree from time to time. One of the biggest was over precisely how to implement P2SH. Good points could be found on different sides. However, in not too much time Gavin put his foot down and said "this is how it's going to be." And, that's how it was (and still is). Gavin was what's called a benevolent dictator. The situation was handled in short order and Bitcoin has been fine. It wasn't about ego or a "power trip". In fact, Gavin never wanted a lead role, but reluctantly accepted when Satoshi requested it of him. Gavin recognized that, for the overall good of the project, some authority was needed, to end debate and put everyone on the same page. We all push together, rather than in separate directions or alone.
Keep in mind, having an agreed upon software thought leader (as I'd call it) doen't mean not decentralized. Nobody can control miners, nor force users to run software. However, that small addition of limited power over one of the power groups in Bitcoin (software devs) can make things run so much better, and possibly be the only way to make things run at all.
The latest drama to unfold in the Bitcoin Cash community seems to be over a post by BCH dev deadalnix in which he hints at taking a firm leadership-like action on an issue. I sincerely applaud and thank him. I recognize it's not about power or ego, but about caring about the health of the project and being smart enough to recognize the futility of perpetual equal authority. However, it looks like this isn't sitting well with at least one other community participant as this post referencing Craig Wright shows.
So I wake up to this drama and sigh, feeling compelled to make this post and implore my fellow community members to take heed to these words. I nominate Amaury Séchet (deadalnix) to wear the lead developer hat, until such time as he chooses to step back (as Gavin eventually did), or someone else makes the case why they should take it over. My choice is based on track record. He seems well qualified. For those unaware, without his stepping up and the user confidence in his abilities Bitcoin Cash might not exist. As I recently commented, not all devs are equal.
You can disagree with my nomination, but please don't disagree that we need a software lead.
submitted by cryptos4pz to btc [link] [comments]

Ты кто такой? Гевин Андресен  Gavin Andresen [ Clear Coin ... Gavin Andresen on BitCoin and Virtual Currency 04/04/2011 Gavin Andresen: How I Got Started in Bitcoins Scaling the Bitcoin UTXO Set with Gavin Andresen Coinbase Speaker Series: Gavin Andresen of Bitcoin Foundation

From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. Gavin Andresen. Born: 1966 (aged 48–49) Residence: Amherst, Massachusetts: Active: 2010–present Gavin Andresen was the Chief Scientist for the Bitcoin Foundation. References. Predecessor: Satoshi Nakamoto: Bitcoin Core maintainer 2011–2014 Successor: Wladimir van der Laan: Bitcoin Core developers. Active: Wladimir van der Laan • Gavin ... Gavin Andresen (born Gavin Bell) is a software developer best known for his involvement with Bitcoin.He is based in Amherst, Massachusetts. Originally a developer of 3D graphics and virtual reality software, he became involved in developing products for the Bitcoin market in 2010, and by 2011 was designated by Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin, as lead developer on Bitcoin ... A deposition with the former Bitcoin Core lead maintainer Gavin Andresen casts doubt on the claim that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. Gavin Andresen (born Gavin Bell [1]) is a software developer best known for his involvement with bitcoin.He is based in Amherst, Massachusetts.. Contents. Career; Bitcoin; References; Originally a developer of 3D graphics and virtual reality software, he became involved in developing products for the bitcoin market in 2010, and was declared by Satoshi Nakamoto as the lead developer of the ... Gavin Andresen (born Gavin Bell) is a software developer best known for his involvement with bitcoin.He is based in Amherst, Massachusetts.. Originally a developer of 3D graphics and virtual reality software, he became involved in developing products for the bitcoin market in 2010, and was declared by Satoshi Nakamoto as the lead developer of the reference implementation for bitcoin client ...

[index] [41559] [42471] [26619] [28132] [48552] [24163] [22481] [17224] [28242] [22830]

Ты кто такой? Гевин Андресен Gavin Andresen [ Clear Coin ...

Chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, Gavin Andresen is today's guest. Host: Leo Laporte Guest: Gavin Andresen Download or subscribe to this show at twi... Gavin recently shared a fascinating bitcoin scaling concept on Github. In this video, we dig into a couple of the details of his idea, and discuss its viability. Take a look at Gavin's post for ... MLTalks: Bitcoin Developers Gavin Andresen, Cory Fields, and Wladimir van der Laan - Duration: 1:31:13. MIT Media Lab 8,689 views Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation, answers the peoples' questions about Bitcoin scalability, core development, Cody Wilson, Satoshi Nakamoto, blockchain technology, US Treasury ... Coinbase Tech Talk Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation and member of the MIT Media Lab's Digital Currency Initiative Visit Coinbase: ht...

#