WHO ARE THE TOP RICHEST BITCOIN OWNERS

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part 2]

Part 1
It's been a bit of time since the first post during which I believe things have crystallised further as to the intentions of the three primary bitcoin variants. I was going to go on a long winded journey to try to weave together the various bits and pieces to let the reader discern from themselves but there's simply too much material that needs to be covered and the effort that it would require is not something that I can invest right now.
Firstly we must define what bitcoin actually is. Many people think of bitcoin as a unit of a digital currency like a dollar in your bank but without a physical substrate. That's kind of correct as a way to explain its likeness to something many people are familiar with but instead it's a bit more nuanced than that. If we look at a wallet from 2011 that has never moved any coins, we can find that there are now multiple "bitcoins" on multiple different blockchains. This post will discuss the main three variants which are Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. In this respect many people are still hotly debating which is the REAL bitcoin variant and which bitcoins you want to be "investing" in.
The genius of bitcoin was not in defining a class of non physical objects to send around. Why bitcoin was so revolutionary is that it combined cryptography, economics, law, computer science, networking, mathematics, etc. and created a protocol which was basically a rule set to be followed which creates a game of incentives that provides security to a p2p network to prevent double spends. The game theory is extremely important to understand. When a transaction is made on the bitcoin network your wallet essentially generates a string of characters which includes your public cryptographic key, a signature which is derived from the private key:pub key pair, the hash of the previous block and an address derived from a public key of the person you want to send the coins to. Because each transaction includes the hash of the previous block (a hash is something that will always generate the same 64 character string result from EXACTLY the same data inputs) the blocks are literally chained together. Bitcoin and the blockchain are thus defined in the technical white paper which accompanied the release client as a chain of digital signatures.
The miners validate transactions on the network and compete with one another to detect double spends on the network. If a miner finds the correct solution to the current block (and in doing so is the one who writes all the transactions that have elapsed since the last block was found, in to the next block) says that a transaction is confirmed but then the rest of the network disagree that the transactions occurred in the order that this miner says (for double spends), then the network will reject the version of the blockchain that that miner is working on. In that respect the miners are incentivised to check each other's work and ensure the majority are working on the correct version of the chain. The miners are thus bound by the game theoretical design of NAKAMOTO CONSENSUS and the ENFORCES of the rule set. It is important to note the term ENFORCER rather than RULE CREATOR as this is defined in the white paper which is a document copyrighted by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009.

Now if we look at the three primary variants of bitcoin understanding these important defining characteristics of what the bitcoin protocol actually is we can make an argument that the variants that changed some of these defining attributes as no longer being bitcoin rather than trying to argue based off market appraisal which is essentially defining bitcoin as a social media consensus rather than a set in stone rule set.
BITCOIN CORE: On first examination Bitcoin Core appears to be the incumbent bitcoin that many are being lead to believe is the "true" bitcoin and the others are knock off scams. The outward stated rationale behind the bitcoin core variant is that computational resources, bandwidth, storage are scarce and that before increasing the size of each block to allow for more transactions we should be increasing the efficiency with which the data being fed in to a block is stored. In order to achieve this one of the first suggested implementations was a process known as SegWit (segregating the witness data). This means that when you construct a bitcoin transaction, in the header of the tx, instead of the inputs being public key and a signature + Hash + address(to), the signature data is moved outside of header as this can save space within the header and allow more transactions to fill the block. More of the history of the proposal can be read about here (bearing in mind that article is published by the bitcoinmagazine which is founded by ethereum devs Vitalik and Mihai and can't necessarily be trusted to give an unbiased record of events). The idea of a segwit like solution was proposed as early as 2012 by the likes of Greg Maxwell and Luke Dash Jnr and Peter Todd in an apparent effort to "FIX" transaction malleability and enable side chains. Those familiar with the motto "problem reaction solution" may understand here that the problem being presented may not always be an authentic problem and it may actually just be necessary preparation for implementing a desired solution.
The real technical arguments as to whether moving signature data outside of the transaction in the header actually invalidates the definition of bitcoin as being a chain of digital signatures is outside my realm of expertise but instead we can examine the character of the individuals and groups involved in endorsing such a solution. Greg Maxwell is a hard to know individual that has been involved with bitcoin since its very early days but in some articles he portrays himself as portrays himself as one of bitcoins harshest earliest critics. Before that he worked with Mozilla and Wikipedia and a few mentions of him can be found on some old linux sites or such. He has no entry on wikipedia other than a non hyperlinked listing as the CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream was a company founded by Greg Maxwell and Adam Back, but in business registration documents only Adam Back is listed as the business contact but registered by James Murdock as the agent. They received funding from a number of VC firms but also Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman and there are suggestions that MIT media labs and the Digital Currency Initiative. For those paying attention Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman have links to Jeffrey Epstein and his offsider Ghislaine Maxwell.

Ghislaine is the daughter of publishing tycoon and fraudster Robert Maxwell (Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, a yiddish orthodox czech). It is emerging that the Maxwells are implicated with Mossad and involved in many different psyops throughout the last decades. Greg Maxwell is verified as nullc but a few months ago was outed using sock puppets as another reddit user contrarian__ who also admits to being Jewish in one of his comments as the former. Greg has had a colourful history with his roll as a bitcoin core developer successfully ousting two of the developers put there by Satoshi (Gavin Andreson and Mike Hearn) and being referred to by Andreson as a toxic troll with counterpart Samon Mow. At this point rather than crafting the narrative around Greg, I will provide a few links for the reader to assess on their own time:
  1. https://coinspice.io/news/btc-dev-gregory-maxwell-fake-social-media-account-accusations-nonsense/
  2. https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/06/06/making-gregory-maxwell-bitcoin-core-committer-huge-mistake-says-gavin-andresen
  3. https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andresen-samson-mow-and-greg-maxwell-toxic-trolls//
  4. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/business/dealbook/the-bitcoin-believer-who-gave-up.html
  5. https://www.coindesk.com/mozilla-accepting-bitcoin-donations
  6. https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup
  7. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/68pusp/gavin_andresen_on_twitter_im_looking_for_beta/dh1cmfl/
  8. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/d14qee/can_someone_post_the_details_of_the_relationships/?ref=tokendaily
  9. https://www.coindesk.com/court-docs-detail-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-bitcoin-consultant-peter-todd
  10. https://coinspice.io/news/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-btc-maximalist-bitcoin-is-a-store-of-value-not-a-currency/
  11. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7579851/More-300-paedophiles-arrested-worldwide-massive-child-abuse-website-taken-down.html
  12. https://news.bitcoin.com/risks-segregated-witness-opening-door-mining-cartels-undermine-bitcoin-network/
  13. https://micky.com.au/craig-wrights-crackpot-bitcoin-theory-covered-by-uks-financial-times/
  14. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/

Now I could just go on dumping more and more articles but that doesn't really weave it all together. Essentially it is very well possible that the 'FIX' of bitcoin proposed with SegWit was done by those who are moral reprobates who have been rubbing shoulders money launderers and human traffickers. Gregory Maxwell was removed from wikipedia, worked with Mozilla who donated a quarter of a million to MIT media labs and had relationship with Joi Ito, the company he founded received funding from people associated with Epstein who have demonstrated their poor character and dishonesty and attempted to wage toxic wars against those early bitcoin developers who wished to scale bitcoin as per the white paper and without changing consensus rules or signature structures.
The argument that BTC is bitcoin because the exchanges and the market have chosen is not necessarily a logical supposition when the vast majority of the money that has flown in to inflate the price of BTC comes from a cryptographic USD token that was created by Brock Pierce (Might Ducks child stahollywood pedo scandal Digital Entertainment Network) who attended Jeffrey Epstein's Island for conferences. The group Tether who issues the USDT has been getting nailed by the New York Attorney General office with claims of $1.4 trillion in damages from their dodgey practices. Brock Pierce has since distanced himself from Tether but Blockstream still works closely with them and they are now exploring issuing tether on the ethereum network. Tether lost it's US banking partner in early 2017 before the monstrous run up for bitcoin prices. Afterwards they alleged they had full reserves of USD however, they were never audited and were printing hundreds of millions of dollars of tether each week during peak mania which was used to buy bitcoin (which was then used as collateral to issue more tether against the bitcoin they bought at a value they inflated). Around $30m in USDT is crossing between China to Russia daily and when some of the groups also related to USDT/Tether were raided they found them in possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of counterfeit physical US bills.
Because of all this it then becomes important to reassess the arguments that were made for the implementation of pegged sidechains, segregated witnesses and other second layer solutions. If preventing the bitcoin blockchain from bloating was the main argument for second layer solutions, what was the plan for scaling the data related to the records of transactions that occur on the second layer. You will then need to rely on less robust ways of securing the second layer than Proof Of Work but still have the same amount of data to contend with, unless there was plans all along for second layer solutions to enable records to be deleted /pruned to facilitate money laundering and violation of laws put in place to prevent banking secrecy etc.
There's much more to it as well and I encourage anyone interested to go digging on their own in to this murky cesspit. Although I know very well what sort of stuff Epstein has been up to I have been out of the loop and haven't familiarised myself with everyone involved in his network that is coming to light.
Stay tuned for part 3 which will be an analysis of the shit show that is the Bitcoin Cash variant...
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

Constructing an Opt-In alternative reward for securing the blockchain

Since a keyboard with a monero logo got upvoted to the top I realized I should post various thoughts I have and generate some discussion. I hope others do the same.
Monero is currently secured by a dwindling block reward. There is a chance that the tail emission reward + transaction fees to secure the blockchain could become insufficient and allow for a scenario where it is profitable for someone to execute a 51% attack.
To understand this issue better, read this:
In Game Theory, Tragedy of the Commons is a market failure scenario where a common good is produced in lower quantities than the public desires, or consumed in greater quantities than desired. One example is pollution - it is in the public's best interest not to pollute, but every individual has incentive to pollute (e.g. because burning fossil fuel is cheap, and individually each consumer doesn't affect the environment much). The relevance to Bitcoin is a hypothetical market failure that might happen in the far future when the block reward from mining drops near zero. In the current Bitcoin design, the only fees miners earn at this time are Transaction fees. Miners will accept transactions with any fees (because the marginal cost of including them is minimal) and users will pay lower and lower fees (in the order of satoshis). It is possible that the honest miners will be under-incentivized, and that too few miners will mine, resulting in lower difficulty than what the public desires. This might mean various 51% attacks will happen frequently, and the Bitcoin will not function correctly. The Bitcoin protocol can be altered to combat this problem - one proposed solution is Dominant Assurance Contracts. Another more radical proposal (in the sense that the required change won't be accepted by most bitcoiners) is to have a perpetual reward that is constant in proportion to the monetary base. That can be achieved in two ways. An ever increasing reward (inflatacoin/expocoin) or a constant reward plus a demurrage fee in all funds that caps the monetary base (freicoin). This scenario was discussed on several threads: - Tragedy of the Commons - Disturbingly low future difficulty equilibrium https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.0 - Stack Exchange http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t Currently there is no consensus whether this problem is real, and if so, what is the best solution. 
Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons

I suspect that least contentious solution to it is not to change code, emission or artificially increase fees (which would actually undermine the tail emission and lead to other problems, I believe: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-reward/) but rather use a Dominant Assurance Contract that makes it rational for those who benefit from Monero to contribute to the block reward.

Dominant assurance contracts
Dominant assurance contracts, created by Alex Tabarrok, involve an extra component, an entrepreneur who profits when the quorum is reached and pays the signors extra if it is not. If the quorum is not formed, the signors do not pay their share and indeed actively profit from having participated since they keep the money the entrepreneur paid them. Conversely, if the quorum succeeds, the entrepreneur is compensated for taking the risk of the quorum failing. Thus, a player will benefit whether or not the quorum succeeds; if it fails he reaps a monetary return, and if it succeeds, he pays only a small amount more than under an assurance contract, and the public good will be provided.
Tabarrok asserts that this creates a dominant strategy) of participation for all players. Because all players will calculate that it is in their best interests to participate, the contract will succeed, and the entrepreneur will be rewarded. In a meta-game, this reward is an incentive for other entrepreneurs to enter the DAC market, driving down the cost disadvantage of dominant assurance contract versus regular assurance contracts.
Monero doesn't have a lot of scripting options to work with currently so it is very hard for me to understand how one might go about creating a Dominant Assurance Contract using Monero, especially in regards to paying out to a miner address.
This is how it could work in Bitcoin:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dominant_Assurance_Contracts
This scheme is an attempt at Mike Hearn's exercise for the reader: an implementation of dominant assurance contracts. The scheme requires the use of multisignature transactions, nLockTime and transaction replacement which means it won't work until these features are available on the Bitcoin network.
A vendor agrees to produce a good if X BTC are raised by date D and to pay Y BTC to each of n contributors if X BTC are not raised by date D, or to pay nY BTC if X BTC are raised and the vendor fails to produce the good to the satisfaction of 2 of 3 independent arbitrators picked through a fair process
The arbitrators specify a 2-of-3 multisignature script to use as an output for the fundraiser with a public key from each arbitrator, which will allow them to judge the performance on actually producing the good
For each contributor:
The vendor and the contributor exchange public keys
They create a 2-of-2 multisignature output from those public keys
With no change, they create but do not sign a transaction with an input of X/n BTC from the contributor and an input of Y BTC from the vendor, with X/n+Y going to the output created in 3.2
The contributor creates a transaction where the output is X+nY to the address created in step 2 and the input is the output of the transaction in 3.3, signs it using SIGHASH_ALL | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, with version = UINT_MAX and gives it to the vendor
The vendor creates a transaction of the entire balance of the transaction in 3.3 to the contributor with nLockTime of D and version < UINT_MAX, signs it and gives it to the contributor
The vendor and contributor then both sign the transaction in 3.3 and broadcast it to the network, making the transaction in 3.4 valid when enough contributors participate and the transaction in 3.5 valid when nLockTime expires
As date D nears, nLockTime comes close to expiration.
If enough (n) people contribute, all of the inputs from 3.4 can combine to make the output valid when signed by the vendor, creating a valid transaction sending that money to the arbitrators, which only agree to release the funds when the vendor produces a satisfactory output
If not enough people ( Note that there is a limit at which it can be more profitable for the vendor to make the remaining contributions when D approaches
Now the arbitrators have control of X (the payment from the contributors) + nY (the performance bond from the vendor) BTC and pay the vendor only when the vendor performs satisfactorily
Such contracts can be used for crowdfunding. Notable examples from Mike Hearn include:
Funding Internet radio stations which don't want to play ads: donations are the only viable revenue source as pay-for-streaming models allow undercutting by subscribers who relay the stream to their own subscribers
Automatically contributing to the human translation of web pages


Monero has these features:
  1. Multisig
  2. LockTime (but it is much different then BTCs)
  3. A possibility to do MoJoin (CoinJoin) like transactions, even if less then optimally private. There is hope that the MoJoin Schemes will allow for better privacy in the future:
I have a draft writeup for a merged-input system called MoJoin that allows multiple parties to generate a single transaction. The goal is to complete the transaction merging with no trust in any party, but this introduces significant complexity and may not be possible with the known Bulletproofs multiparty computation scheme. My current version of MoJoin assumes partial trust in a dealer, who learns the mappings between input rings and outputs (but not true spends or Pedersen commitment data).

Additionally, Non-Interactive Refund Transactions could also be possible in Monero's future.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/595
I can't fully workout how all of these could work together to make a DAC that allows miners to put up and payout a reward if it doesn't succeed, or how we could make it so *any* miner who participated (by putting up a reward) could claim the reward if it succeeded. I think this should really be explored as it could make for a much more secure blockchain, potentially saving us if a "crypto winter" hits where the value of monero and number of transactions are low, making for a blockchain that is hard to trust because it would be so cheap to perform a 51% attack.


I am still skeptical of Dominant Assurance Contracts, despite success in an initial test https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/08/a-test-of-dominant-assurance-contracts.html
it still remains questionable or at least confusing: https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/747/im-not-understanding-why-dominant-assurance-contracts-are-so-special
submitted by Vespco to Monero [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]

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]

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]

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 propose to start a 'class action' lawsuit against all the companies and individuals involved with S2X/NYA in any capacity. Hear me out:

Edit- For all the people saying that we shouldn't use the law against S2X. Thanks exab for this post Satoshi's verdict: Use laws to protect yourself and Bitcoin!
Satoshi's source code (comment) in every file he created:
// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
I trust it ends the narrative that we should not use laws to protect ourselves or Bitcoin.
We don't need to wait anymore, certainly not until they do a real damage to the Bitcoin structure or decentralization, we have now enough documented evidence of malicious intent and fraud. We will give an ultimatum and a one week grace period to give a chance to drop out before a company/individual is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. It is time we organize properly, like they did, and defend against this ridiculous and malicious take-over attempt.
This is an actual Trojan Horse and we are welcoming in with our complacency by saying: "Bitcoin has survived all past attacks, honeybadger don't care", don't forget that 'honeybadger' is all of us, united. This attack is not like the others, this one has the backing of the most powerful companies in the space plus most of the miners.
They want to succeed were the banker's special forces led by Blythe Masters failed to infiltrate and highjack Bitcoin since she was well known by many people and could not run incognito.
Now they are doing it from the inside, including the purchase of weak-morals developers like Garzik, Hearn and Andersen, as well as entrepreneurs like Ver, Voorhees, Jihan and Pair (maybe even Armstrong).
Stop underestimating these people, they are very smart and have very deep pockets (hundreds of billions of printed to infinity fiat deep).
Here is a list of the people who should not be trusted at all and many of them will probably be listed as defendants: Gavin Andersen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham and Brian Armstrong.
By now, they should be considered as enemies of Bitcoin and decentralization. Their credibility, reputation, and businesses will be run into the ground by no other than their own greed, selfishness and seek for more power and control, unless they come out publicly against S2X/NYA.
We, the people/users/nodes, and the hardworking and honest Core developers are the honeybadger: WE ARE BITCOIN. This is not FUD, Bitcoin will survive, there is no way to put it back into Pandora's Box, but we need to be conscious that we can easily avoid any damage if we remain united. Let's swarm the S2X/NYA beast and show it the real power of Decentralization. Exciting times we are living... this will be fun!
Edit- Great post on btc against S2X... This attack is so blatant that even they are seeing through it now. OP is a well-known poster there (strongly anti-bitcoin and strong bcash supporter), the post is surprisingly being upvoted and even gilded:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/743qb8/is_segwit2x_the_real_banker_takeove
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.
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?
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Overheard on r\bitcoin: "And when will the network adopt the Segwit2x(tm) block size hardfork?" ~ u/DeathScythe676 // "I estimate that will happen at roughly the same time as hell freezing over." ~ u/nullc, One-Meg Greg mAXAwell, CTO of the failed shitty startup Blockstream

Overheard on r\bitcoin:
And when will the network adopt the Segwit2x(tm) block size hardfork?
~ u/DeathScythe676
I estimate that will happen at roughly the same time as hell freezing over.
~ u/nullc - One-Meg Greg mAXAwell, CTO of the failed, banker-owned, "shitty startup" Blockstream
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6okd1n/bip91_lock_in_is_guaranteed_as_of_block_476768/dki2ev0/?context=1
https://archive.fo/dOb4i
Pass the popcorn! Let the fireworks begin!
Now when those two toxic devs Greg and Luke continue to cripple their coin - we can actually cheer them on and support them!
Because...

Bitcoin Cash users unaffected!

LOL!
It's so fun now watching the economically ignorant, toxic dev Greg Maxwell, CTO of the failed shitty startup Blockstream, continue to cripple his heavily modified, low-capacity, weak-security version of Bitcoin: Bitcoin SegWit 1MB.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH) (the authentic Bitcoin - which continues to support Satoshi's original design and roadmap for BigBlocks, StrongSigs, and SingleSpend), will continue to get stronger and stronger.
Previous posts about the toxic dev Greg Maxwell, CTO of the failed startup Blockstream:
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
Here is Greg Maxwell getting multiple smackdowns again today ... "Your company handled this one wrong" ... "devoting all the time money and effort of your multi-million dollar company to convince the community 2mb is too dangerous when it's not" ... "You core devs are so detached from reality" ...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4l8glo/here_is_greg_maxwell_getting_multiple_smackdowns/
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dtfld/previously_greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream/
Holy shit! Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd both just ADMITTED and AGREED that NO solution has been implemented for the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector, discovered by Peter Todd in 2015, exposed again by Peter Rizun in his recent video, and exposed again by Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qftjc/holy_shit_greg_maxwell_and_peter_todd_both_just/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
The day when the Bitcoin community realizes that Greg Maxwell and Core/Blockstream are the main thing holding us back (due to their dictatorship and censorship - and also due to being trapped in the procedural paradigm) - that will be the day when Bitcoin will start growing and prospering again.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4q95ri/the_day_when_the_bitcoin_community_realizes_that/
Wikipedians on Greg Maxwell in 2006 (now CTO of Blockstream): "engaged in vandalism", "his behavior is outrageous", "on a rampage", "beyond the pale", "bullying", "calling people assholes", "full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults", "pretends to be an admin", "he seems to think he is above policy"…
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zxl2l/mining_is_how_you_vote_for_rule_changes_gregs/
Core/Blockstream attacks any dev who knows how to do simple & safe "Satoshi-style" on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, like Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. Now we're left with idiots like Greg Maxwell, Adam Back and Luke-Jr - who don't really understand scaling, mining, Bitcoin, or capacity planning.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6du70v/coreblockstream_attacks_any_dev_who_knows_how_to/
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59hcvblockstream_is_just_another_shitty_startup_a/
Keep crippling your heavily modified version of Bitcoin, Greg!
The rest of the community is moving on without you - following Satoshi's original design and roadmap - not your failed dead-end of a roadmap.
We all totally support your plan of "1MB4EVER" - on your modified version of Bitcoin.
So knock yourself out!
Keep on making your heavily modified version of Bitcoin (Bitcoin-RBF-SegWit-1MB) weaker and weaker!
All you're doing now is making Satoshi's original version of Bitcoin - Bitcoin Cash - stronger and stronger!
Bitcoin Cash is the authentic Bitcoin, continuing to adhere to the whitepaper - continuing to support BigBlocks, StrongSigs, and SingleSpend.

Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH)

Bitcoin Cash is the original Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi.
Bitcoin Cash simply continues with Satoshi's original design and roadmap, whose success has always has been and always will be based on three essential features:
  • high on-chain market-based capacity supporting a greater number of faster and cheaper transactions on-chain;
  • strong on-chain cryptographic security guaranteeing that transaction signatures are always validated and saved on-chain;
  • prevention of double-spending guaranteeing that the same coin can only be spent once.
This means that Bitcoin Cash is the only version of Bitcoin which maintains support for:
  • BigBlocks, supporting increased on-chain transaction capacity - now supporting blocksizes up to 8MB (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "centrally planned blocksize" bug added by Core - which only supports 1-2MB blocksizes);
  • StrongSigs, enforcing mandatory on-chain signature validation - continuing to require miners to download, validate and save all transaction signatures on-chain (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "segregated witness" bug added by Core - which allows miners to discard or avoid downloading signature data);
  • SingleSpend, allowing merchants to continue to accept "zero confirmation" transactions (zero-conf) - facilitating small, in-person retail purchases (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) Replace-by-Fee (RBF) bug added by Core - which allows a sender to change the recipient and/or the amount of a transaction, after already sending it).
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]

People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.

https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3f6ukl
Wow.
On many occasions, I have publicly stated my respect for Greg's cryptography and networking coding skills and I have publicly given him credit where credit was due.
But now I'm starting to agree with people who say that there are plenty of other talented devs who could also provide those same coding skills as well - and that Greg's destructive, arrogant and anti-social behavior is actually driving away more talented devs than he can attract.
Check out these quotes about Greg from other Bitcoin users below:
I honestly don't think he is capable of being a worthy contributor.
He is arrogant to the extreme, destructive/disruptive to social circles and as an extension decision-making (as he must ALWAYS be right), and thus incapable of being any kind of valuable contributor.
He has a very solid track record spanning years, and across projects (his abhorrent behaviour when he was a Wikipedia contributor) that demonstrate he is not good for much other than menial single-user projects.
I simply do not trust him with anything unless he were overseen by someone that knows what he is like and can veto his decisions at a moment's notice.
At this stage I'd take 5 mediocre but personable cryptographers over Greg every day of the week, as I know they can work together, build strong and respectable working relationships, admit when they're wrong (or fuck up), and point out each others' mistakes without being a cunt about it.
Greg is very, VERY bad for Bitcoin.
He's had over a decade to mature, and it simply hasn't happened, he's fucking done in my books. No more twentieth chance for him.
~ ferretinjapan
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fih4z
His coding skills are absolutely not that rare.
I have hired a dozen people who could code circles around him, and have proven it in their ability to code for millions of dollars.
His lack of comprehension on basic logic, however, is a rare skill.
~ lifeboatz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fr70q
Cryptography has been figured out by someone else. BTC doesn't need much new in that regard.
ECDSA is a known digital signature algo, and nullc isn't making changes to it.
Even if BTC makes use of another DSA, someone else will write the libs.
~ one_line_commenter
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fq87f
As evidenced by the Wikipedia episode, his modus operandi is to become highly valuable, get in a position of power, undertake autocratic actions and then everyone is in a dilemma - they don't like what he is doing, but they worry about losing his "valuable contributions" (sound familiar?).
It is weak to let concerns over losing his "skills" prevent the project from showing him the door.
He should go.
Why should we risk his behavior with our or other people's money and one of the greatest innovations in the last 50 years?
There is probably some other project out there in the world where he can contribute his skills to.
As it is becoming very obvious - there are many talented developers and innovations going on in altcoins etc. A lot of this talent is simply lost to Bitcoin because of him.
It is easy to see what we might be losing by him going.
It is not as obvious what we might be gaining - but it could be truly great.
~ papabitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3flhj3
When Maxwell did a Satoshi-like disappearance late 2015, the dev mailing list sparked into life with a lot of polite, constructive, and free-thinking discussion.
Tragically, the Maxwell vanishing act only lasted a month or so, and the clammy Shadow of Darkness fell once more on the mailing list and Core Dev.
I don't believe that he can contribute without driving away more development than he can attract.
~ solex1
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fq8ma
I've seen it many times - 1 person can affect a whole culture.
When they are gone it is suddenly like everyone can breathe again.
~ papabitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fs2hv
If I was maintainer of bitcoin I would ask Greg to go away and leave for good.
I acknowledge the crypto wizardness of Greg, but it seems to be the kind of person to only leave scorched earth after a conflict.
~ stkoelle
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fb0iu
If Greg is under stress, and feeling let-down by those around him, and striving to obtain his vision at all costs - then he would probably be better off stepping back.
If this is a repeating pattern for him, he should probably seek some kind of professional advice and support.
Smart people tend to get screwed up by events in life.
I don't bear him any personal malice - I just want him to go and play in some other sandpit - he has had his chances.
~ papabitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/d3fqmd7
Greg's destructiveness seems to actually be part of a pattern stretching back 10 years, as shown by his vandalism of the Wikipedia project in 2006:
Wikipedians on Greg Maxwell in 2006 (now CTO of Blockstream): "engaged in vandalism", "his behavior is outrageous", "on a rampage", "beyond the pale", "bullying", "calling people assholes", "full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults", "pretends to be an admin", "he seems to think he is above policy"...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
GMaxwell in 2006, during his Wikipedia vandalism episode: "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/459iyw/gmaxwell_in_2006_during_his_wikipedia_vandalism/
Greg Maxwell's Wikipedia War - or he how learned to stop worrying and love the sock puppet
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/457y0k/greg_maxwells_wikipedia_war_or_he_how_learned_to/
And of course, there have been many, many posts on these forums over the past months, documenting Greg Maxwell's poor leadership skills, underhanded and anti-social behavior, and economic incompetence.
Below is a sampling of these posts exposing Greg's toxic influence on Bitcoin:
Greg Maxwell admits the main reason for the block size limit is to force a fee market. Not because of bandwidth, transmission rates, orphaning, but because otherwise transactions would be 'too cheap'.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42hl7g/greg_maxwell_admits_the_main_reason_for_the_block/
Greg Maxwell was wrong: Transaction fees can pay for proof-of-work security without a restrictive block size limit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/
Andrew Stone: "I believe that the market should be making the decision of what should be on the Blockchain based on transaction fee, not Gregory Maxwell. I believe that the market should be making the decision of how big blocks should be, not Gregory Maxwell."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3w2562/andrew_stone_i_believe_that_the_market_should_be/
Mike Hearn:"Bitcoin's problem is not a lack of a leader, it's problem is that the leader is Gregory Maxwell at Blockstream"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4c9y3e/mike_hearnbitcoins_problem_is_not_a_lack_of_a/
Greg Maxwell caught red handed playing dirty to convince Chinese miners
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/438udm/greg_maxwell_caught_red_handed_playing_dirty_to/
My response to Gregory Maxwell's "trip to the moon" statement
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4393oe/my_response_to_gregory_maxwells_trip_to_the_moon/
It is "clear that Greg Maxwell actually has a fairly superficial understanding of large swaths of computer science, information theory, physics and mathematics."- Dr. Peter Rizun (managing editor of the journal Ledger)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xok2o/it_is_clear_that_greg_maxwell_unullc_actually_has/
Uh-oh: "A warning regarding the onset of centralised authority in the control of Bitcoin through Blocksize restrictions: Several core developers, including Gregory Maxwell, have assumed a mantle of control. This is centralisation. The Blockchain needs to be unconstrained." (anonymous PDF on Scribd)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4hxlquhoh_a_warning_regarding_the_onset_of_centralised/
Blockstream Core Dev Greg Maxwell still doesn't get it, condones censorship in bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42vqyq/blockstream_core_dev_greg_maxwell_still_doesnt/
This exchange between Voorhees and Maxwell last month opened my eyes that there's a serious problem communicating with Core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49k70a/this_exchange_between_voorhees_and_maxwell_last/
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46052e/adam_back_greg_maxwell_are_experts_in_mathematics/
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc ... So why the fuck has Core/Blockstream done everything they can to obstruct this simple, safe scaling solution? And where is SegWit? When are we going to judge Core/Blockstream by their (in)actions - and not by their words?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4jzf05/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
Greg Maxwell nullc just drove the final nail into the coffin of his crumbling credibility - by arguing that Bitcoin Classic should adopt Luke-Jr's poison-pill pull-request to change the PoW (and bump all miners off the network). If Luke-Jr's poison pill is so great, then why doesn't Core add it?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41c1h6/greg_maxwell_unullc_just_drove_the_final_nail/
Gregory Maxwell nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44qr31/gregory_maxwell_unullc_has_evidently_never_heard/
Greg Maxwell nullc (CTO of Blockstream) has sent me two private messages in response to my other post today (where I said "Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream."). In response to his private messages, I am publicly posting my reply, here:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ir6xh/greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream_has_sent/
Rewriting history: Greg Maxwell is claiming some of Gavin's earliest commits on Github
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45g3d5/rewriting_history_greg_maxwell_is_claiming_some/
Greg Maxwell, nullc, given your valid interest in accurate representation of authorship, what do you do about THIS?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4550sl/greg_maxwell_unullc_given_your_valid_interest_in/
Collaboration requires communication
~ GavinAndresen
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4asyc9/collaboration_requires_communication/
Maxwell the vandal calls Adam, Luke, and Peter Todd dipshits
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8rsa/maxwell_the_vandal_calls_adam_luke_and_peter_todd/
In successful open-source software projects, the community should drive the code - not the other way around. Projects fail when "dead scripture" gets prioritized over "common sense". (Another excruciating analysis of Core/Blockstream's pathological fetishizing of a temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k8kda/in_successful_opensource_software_projects_the/
The tragedy of Core/Blockstream/Theymos/Luke-JAdamBack/GregMaxell is that they're too ignorant about Computer Science to understand the Robustness Principle (“Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept”), and instead use meaningless terminology like “hard fork” vs “soft fork.”
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k6tke/the_tragedy_of/
Gregory Maxwell - "Absent [the 1mb limit] I would have not spent a dollar of my time on Bitcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41jx99/gregory_maxwell_absent_the_1mb_limit_i_would_have/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

How to make sense of Core's actions without conspiracy theories or assuming they're evil

There are a lot of posts in this subreddit that suggest that Core is part of some evil conspiracy. This is both inaccurate and it hurts the big-block cause because it scares regular people away from Classic.
You can understand Core's actions by understanding the following:
IMO the "evil" things people are claiming that Core is doing can be explained by the non-evil factors above.
submitted by go1111111 to btc [link] [comments]

My draft for a new /r/btc FAQ explaining the split from /r/Bitcoin to new users

If /btc is going to actually compete with /Bitcoin, it needs to be just as friendly and informative to new users, especially given its position as the “non default” or “breakaway” sub. The current /btc sticky saying "Welcome to the Wiki" doesn't even have any content in it and I feel this is a bit of a wasted opportunity to create an informative resource that new users will see by default and everyone else can link to instead of retyping things over and over about the history and difference between the subs.
Here's what I've written as a starting point. I've done my best to keep it as concise and relevant as possible but in all honesty it is a complicated issue and a short but effective explanation is basically impossible. I hope the community can expand/improve on it further.
Quick bit about me
I got into Bitcoin in October 2013, when /Bitcoin had around 40k subscribers if I remember correctly, so by now I've actually personally experienced a large portion of Bitcoin's history - including the events preceding and since the creation of this sub. I have been an active and popular poster on /Bitcoin for almost all of that time, until the split and my subsequent banning. With the recent censorship fiasco, I'm finding I have to reiterate the same points over and over again to explain to newer users what happened with the /Bitcoin vs /btc split, questions about hard forks, what is likely to happen in the future and so on. So I put a couple of hours into writing this post to save myself the trouble in future.

/btc FAQ - Historical split from /Bitcoin megathread - v0.1

There is a TL:DR; at the bottom, but it is exactly that. If you skip straight to the TL:DR; then don’t expect sympathy when you post questions that have already been covered in the lengthy and detailed main post.

New to Bitcoin?

I am totally new to Bitcoin. What is it? How does it work? Can/should I mine any? Where can I buy some? How do I get more information?
All of these questions are actually really well covered in the /Bitcoin FAQ. Check it out in a new tab here. Once you've got a bit of a handle on the technology as a whole, come back here for the rest of the story.

History: /btc vs /Bitcoin

What's the difference between /btc and /Bitcoin? What happened to create two such strongly opposed communities? Why can't I discuss /btc in /Bitcoin?
Historically, the /Bitcoin subreddit was the largest and most active forum for discussing Bitcoin. As Bitcoin grew close to a cap in the number of transactions it could process, known as the 1MB block size limit, the community had differing opinions on the best way to proceed. Note that this upcoming issue was anticipated well ahead of time, with Satoshi's chosen successor to lead the project Gavin Andresen posting about it in mid 2015. Originally, there was quite a broad spread of opinions - some people favoured raising the blocksize to various extents, some people favoured implementing a variety of second layer solutions to Bitcoin, probably most people thought both could be a good idea in one form or another.
This topic was unbelievably popular at the time, taking up almost every spot on the front page of /Bitcoin for weeks on end.
Unfortunately, the head moderator of /Bitcoin - theymos - felt strongly enough about the issue to use his influence to manipulate the debate. His support was for the proposal of existing software (called Bitcoin Core) NOT to raise the blocksize limit past 1MB and instead rely totally on second layer solutions - especially one called Segregated Witness (or SegWit). With some incredibly convoluted logic, he decided that any different implementations of Bitcoin that could potentially raise the limit were effectively equivalent to separate cryptocurrencies like Litecoin or Ethereum and thus the block size limit or implement other scaling solutions were off-topic and ban-worthy. At the time the most popular alternative was called Bitcoin XT and was supported by experienced developers Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, who have since both left Bitcoin Core development in frustration at their marginalisation. Theymos claimed that for Bitcoin XT or any other software implementation to be relevant to /Bitcoin required "consensus", which was never well defined, despite it being seemingly impossible for everyone to agree on the merits of a new project if no one was allowed to discuss it in the first place. Anyone who didn't toe the line of his vaguely defined moderation policy was temporarily or permanently banned. There was also manipulation of the community using the following tactics - which can still be seen today:
This created enormous uproar among users, as even many of those in favour of Bitcoin Core thought it was authoritarian to actively suppress this crucial debate. theymos would receive hundreds of downvotes whenever he posted: for example here where he gets -749 for threatening to ban prominent Bitcoin business Coinbase from the subreddit.
In an extraordinary turn of events, Theymos posted a thread which received only 26% upvotes in a sample size of thousands announcing that he did not care if even 90% of users disagreed with his policy, he would not change his opinion or his moderation policy to facilitate the discussion the community wanted to have. His suggested alternative was instead for those users, however many there were, to leave.
Here are Theymos' exact words, as he describes how he intends to continue moderating Bitcoin according to his own personal rules rather than the demands of the vast majority of users, who according to him clearly don't have any "real arguments" or "any brains".
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin , and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
/btc was therefore born in an environment not of voluntary departure but of forced exile.
This forced migration caused two very unfortunate occurrences:
  1. It polarised the debate around Bitcoin scaling. Previously, there was a lot of civil discussion about compromise and people with suggestions from all along the spectrum were working to find the best solution. That was no longer possible when a moderation policy would actively suppress anyone with opinions too different from Theymos. Instead it forced everyone into a "with us or against us" situation, which is why the /btc subreddit has been pushed so far in favour of the idea of a network hard fork (discussed below).
  2. It has distracted Bitcoin from its mission of becoming a useful, global, neutral currency into a war of information. New users often find /Bitcoin and assume it to be the authoritative source of information, only to later discover that a lot of important information or debate has been invisibly removed from their view.
Since then, like any entrenched conflict, things have degenerated somewhat on both sides to name calling and strawman arguments. However, /btc remains committed to permitting free and open debate on all topics and allowing user downvotes to manage any "trolling" (as /Bitcoin used to) instead of automatic shadow-banning or heavy-handed moderator comment deletion (as /Bitcoin does now). Many users in /Bitcoin deny that censorship exists at all (it is difficult to see when anyone pointing out the censorship has their comment automatically hidden by the automoderator) or justify it as necessary removal of "trolls", which at this point now includes thousands upon thousands of current and often long-standing Bitcoin users and community members.
Ongoing censorship is still rampant, partially documented in this post by John Blocke
For another detailed account of this historical sequence of events, see singularity87 s posts here and here.
/btc has a public moderator log as demonstration of its commitment to transparency and the limited use of moderation. /Bitcoin does not.
Why is so much of the discussion in /btc about the censorship in /Bitcoin? Isn't a better solution to create a better community rather than constantly complaining?
There are two answers to this question.
  1. Over time, as /btc grows, conversation will gradually start to incorporate more information about the Bitcoin ecosystem, technology, price etc. Users are encouraged to aid this process by submitting links to relevant articles and up/downvoting on the /new and /rising tab as appropriate. However, /btc was founded effectively as a refuge for confused and angry users banned from /Bitcoin and it still needs to serve that function so at least some discussion of the censorship will probably always persist (unless there is a sudden change of moderation policy in /Bitcoin).
  2. The single largest issue in Bitcoin right now is the current cap on the number of transactions the network can process, known as the blocksize limit. Due to the censorship in /Bitcoin, open debate of the merits of different methods of addressing this problem is impossible. As a result, the censorship of /Bitcoin (historically the most active and important Bitcoin community forum) has become by proxy the single most important topic in Bitcoin, since only by returning to open discussion would there be any hope of reaching agreement on the solution to the block size limit itself. As a topic of such central importance, there is naturally going to be a lot of threads about this until a solution is found. This is simply how Bitcoin works, that at any one time there is one key issue under discussion for lengthy periods of time (previous examples of community "hot topics" include the demise of the original Bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, the rise to a 51% majority hash rate of mining pool GHash.io and the supposed "unveiling" of Bitcoin's anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto).

Bitcoin Network Hard Forks

What is a hard fork? What happens if Bitcoin hard forks?
A network hard fork is when a new block of transactions is published under a new set of rules that only some of the network will accept. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain history of transactions to two separate blockchains of the current state of the network. With any luck, the economic incentive for all users to converge quickly brings everyone together on one side of the fork, but this is not guaranteed especially since there is not a lot of historical precedent for such an event.
A hard fork is necessary to raise the block size limit above its 1MB cap.
Why is /btc generally in favour of a hard fork and /Bitcoin generally against?
According to a lot of users on /Bitcoin - a hard fork can be characterised as an “attack” on the network. The confusion and bad press surrounding a hard fork would likely damage Bitcoin’s price and/or reputation (especially in the short term). They point to the ongoing turmoil with Ethereum as an example of the dangers of a hard fork. Most of /Bitcoin sees the stance of /btc as actively reckless, that pushing for a hard fork creates the following problems:
According to a lot of users on /btc - a hard fork is necessary despite these risks. Most of /btc sees the stance of /Bitcoin as passively reckless, that continuing to limit Bitcoin’s blocksize while remaining inactive creates the following problems:
Bitcoiners are encouraged to examine all of the information and reach their own conclusion. However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is an open-source project founded on the ideal of free market competition (between any/all software projects, currencies, monetary policies, miners, ideas etc.). In one sense, /btc vs /Bitcoin is just another extension of this, although Bitcoiners are also encouraged to keep abreast of the top posts and links on both subreddits. Only those afraid of the truth need to cut off opposing information.
What do Bitcoin developers, businesses, users, miners, nodes etc. think?
Developers
There are developers on both sides of the debate, although it is a common argument in /Bitcoin to claim that the majority supports Bitcoin Core. This is true in the sense that Bitcoin Core is the current default and has 421 listed code contributors but misleading because not only are many of those contributors authors of a single tiny change and nothing else but also many major figures like Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik have left the project while still being counted as historical contributors.
Businesses including exchanges etc.
A definite vote of confidence is not available from the vast majority of Bitcoin businesses, and wouldn't be binding in any case. The smart decision for most businesses is to support both chains in the event of a fork until the network resolves the issue (which may only be a day or two).
Users
Exact user sentiment is impossible to determine, especially given the censorship on /Bitcoin.
Miners and Nodes
Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
What do I do if the network hard forks?* Do we end up with two Bitcoins?
Firstly, in the event of a hard fork there is no need to panic. All Bitcoins are copied to both chains in the case of a split, so any Bitcoins you have are safe. HOWEVER, in the event of a fork there will be some period of confusion where it is important to be very careful about how/why you spend your Bitcoins. Hopefully (and most likely) this would not last long - everyone in Bitcoin is motivated to converge into agreement for everyone's benefit as soon as possible - but it's impossible to say for sure.
There isn't a lot of historical data about cryptocurrency hard forks, but one example is alternative cryptocurrency Ethereum that forked into two coins after the events of the DAO and currently exists as two separate chains, ETH (Ethereum) and ETC (Ethereum Classic).
The Ethereum fork is not a good analogy for Bitcoin because its network difficulty target adjusts every single block, so a massive drop in hash rate does not significantly impede its functioning. Bitcoin’s difficult target adjusts only every 2100 blocks - which under usual circumstances takes two weeks but in the event of a hard fork could be a month or more for the smaller chain. It is almost inconceivable that a minority of miners would willingly spend millions of dollars over a month or more purely on principle to maintain a chain that was less secure and processed transactions far slower than the majority chain - even assuming the Bitcoins on this handicapped chain didn't suffer a market crash to close to worthless.
Secondly, a hard fork is less likely to be a traumatic event than it is often portrayed in /Bitcoin:

What Happens Now

How do I check on the current status of opinion?
Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network.
Node Support Information
Miner Support Information
Users are also welcome to engage in anecdotal speculation about community opinion based on their impression of the commentary and activity in /btc and /Bitcoin.
Haven't past attempts to raise the blocksize failed?
There is no time limit or statute of limitations on the number of attempts the community can make to increase the block size and scale Bitcoin. Almost any innovation in the history of mankind required several attempts to get working and this is no different.
The initial attempt called Bitcoin XT never got enough support for a fork because key developer Mike Hearn left out of frustration at trying to talk around all the censorship and community blockading.
The second major attempt called Bitcoin Classic gained massive community momentum until it was suddenly halted by the drastic implementation of censorship by Theymos described above.
The most popular attempt at the moment is called Bitcoin Unlimited.
/btc is neutral and welcoming to any and all projects that want to find a solution to scaling Bitcoin - either on-or off-chain. However, many users are suspicious of Bitcoin Core's approach that involves only SegWit, developed by a private corporation called Blockstream and that has already broken its previous promises in a document known as the Hong Kong Agreement to give the network a block size limit raise client along with Segregated Witness (only the latter was delivered) .
What if the stalemate is irreconcilable and nothing ever happens?
Increasing transaction fees and confirmation times are constantly increasing the pressure to find a scaling solution - leading some to believe that further adoption of Bitcoin Unlimited or a successor scaling client will eventually occur. Bitcoin Core's proposed addition of SegWit is struggling to gain significant support and as it is already the default client (and not censored in /Bitcoin) it is unlikely to suddenly grow any further.
If the stalemate is truly irreconcilable, eventually users frustrated by the cost, time and difficulty of Bitcoin will begin migrating to alternative cryptocurrencies. This is obviously not a desirable outcome for long standing Bitcoin supporters and holders, but cannot be ignored as the inevitable free market resort if Bitcoin remains deadlocked for long enough.

TL:DR;

I don’t know anything about Bitcoin. Help me?
What’s the /btc vs /Bitcoin story?
  • Bitcoin is at its transaction capacity and needs to scale to onboard more users
  • The community was discussing different ways to do this until the biased head moderator of /Bitcoin Theymos got involved
  • Theymos, started an authoritarian censorship rampage which culminated in telling 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. /btc is where they went. Here is the thread where it all started. Note the 26% upvoted on the original post, the hundreds of upvotes of community outcry in the comments and the graveyard of [removed] posts further down the chain. Highly recommended reading in its entirety.
  • To this day, /Bitcoin bans all discussion of alternative scaling proposals and /btc
  • Bitcoin is about freedom, and can’t function effectively with either an artificially restricted transaction cap or a main community forum that is so heavily manipulated. This subreddit is the search for solutions to both problems as well as general Bitcoin discussion.
What’s the deal with hard forks?
  • No TL:DR; possible, read the whole post.
What happens now?
  • Node Support Information
  • Miner Support Information
  • Debate continues in /btc, and generally doesn't continue in /Bitcoin - although posts referencing /btc or Bitcoin Unlimited regularly sneak past the moderators because it is such a crucial topic
  • Eventually one side or the other breaks, enough miners/nodes/users get on one side and Bitcoin starts scaling. This may or may not involve a hard fork.
  • If not, fees and average confirmation times continue to rise until users migrate en masse to an altcoin. This is not an imminent danger, as can be seen by the BTC marketcap dominance at its historical levels of 80+% but could change at any time
submitted by Shibinator to btc [link] [comments]

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

Centralization is a double-edged sword.
So far, centralization (and intertia, and laziness, and caution) has been favoring Blockstream.
But if and when a congestion crisis comes, then the tide is gonna turn pretty quickly - and Blockstream's monopoly in terms of "code running on the network" is gonna evaporate quicker than anyone expected.
How will this happen?
Like this:
Bitcoin is going to go into a crisis - not just the current agonizing slow-motion swamp of centralized fascist governance, but a real-time honking red alert involving a clogged-up network, with people freaking out screaming from the rooftops that millions of dollars in transactions are in limbo due to some pointless fucked-up 1 MB "blocksize limit".
And at that point, people are going to get rid of the damn piece of broken cripple-code, immediately.
End of story.
Slow to crumble, fast to collapse
Up till now, the Bitcoin governance crisis has been like slowly sinking into a swamp of quicksand.
But once a real-time congestion crisis actually hits (and online forums become dominated by posts screaming "my transaction is stuck in limbo!!!"), then all the previous bullshit and bloviating from economic idiots about "fee markets" and "soft hard forks" or whatever other nonsense will be instantly forgotten.
And at that point, there will be only 2 things that can happen:
You don't need Blockstream - they need you
When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch.
People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000.
Eventually, we are going to remember what vote-with-your-CPU consensus looks like
Remember all those hours you wasted on reddit?
Remember all that time you wasted in some hidden downvoted sub-thread debating with some snarky little toxic troll who'd wandered over from a censored Milgram experiment forum full of brainwashed circlejerkers and foot-stomping fascists whose only adrenaline rush and power trip in life had evidently been when they would run around bloviating gibberish like "fee markets!" or "Austrian!" to the self-selected bunch of ignorant submissive sycophants who hadn't been banned from r\bitcoin yet?
Well, when the real crisis hits, all that trivial online drama isn't going to matter any more.
When the inevitable congestion crisis finally comes, it's only going to take a couple of mining pools plus a couple of exchanges to make a simple life-or-death business decision to un-install Blockstream's artificially crippled code and instead install code that has actually been upgraded to deal with the reality of mining and the marketplace - and then we're all going to see what actual vote-with-your-CPU consensus really looks like (instead of vote-with-your-sockpuppet pseudo-consensus on Reddit).
This upgraded code could be Classic, or Unlimited, or even a modded version Core - it doesn't really matter.
Code is code and money is money, and when push comes to shove, investors and miners aren't going to give a damn what some overpaid economic idiot from Blockstream said at some meeting in Hong Kong once, or what some fascist poisonous astroturfing shill-bot posted a million times on Reddit.
Things usually move slow in Bitcoin-land - except when they move fast
For an example of how fast the tide can turn, just look at a couple of major events from the past two days:
(1) Coinbase is suddenly saying that