Current Bitcoin XT contains a network splitting bug. Rather than behaving responsibly, the maintainers of BitcoinXT are smearing the developers of Bitcoin Core (whom had nothing to do with their bug).
Recently XT integrated a change to how it fetches blocks to make "creative use" of the filteredblock functionality to send blocks using less space which they are calling "thinblocks". This was originally proposed and implemented by Pieter Wuille in ~late 2012 but the idea was not pursued because it was slow, inefficient, and complex to get right. More recently Mike Hearn attempted a new implementation. The way it is intended to work in XT is that when a block shows up, it is fetched with the BIP37 filtered block functionality using a match-everything filter. This causes it to send a list of all transactions and the transactions themselves, but-- hopefully-- skip the transactions that had already been sent, thus saving bandwidth. Because of how the Bitcoin protocol works, once a transaction is in a block it cannot reliably be by itself fetched from a peer. The Bitcoin protocol provides no random access to the blockchain (as this would require resource intensive additional indexes). This is why BIP37 has any functionality to send transactions themselves at all. I say "not reliably" because there is a limited memory for recently advertised transactions which still can be fetched. Bitcoin XT has mempool space management that makes it forget unconfirmed transactions. This interacts fatally with the thinblocks behavior, since peers will remember that a peer previously knew about transactions that peer has since forgotten (due to eviction) and never send them; causing block reconstruction to fail. Unable to receive the block, a mining XT node would be forced to go and create a ledger fork. In Bitcoin Core 0.12 we switched the datastructure that remembers what has already been received from or sent to other peers to a probabilistic one in order to have a longer memory but use less space. Because there could be false positives, we removed the already sent filtering from the filteredblock as it is imperative for existing SPV wallets to not withhold transactions there (as otherwise they'll never learn from them there), and required by the BIP37 specification not withhold. A side effect of this is that it cures the above described network splitting bug-- but it also kills all of the space savings. For reasons unclear to me, XT cherry-picked this change out of core and included it in their thinblocks patch. This is very surprising to me because the change was very clearly described. They then merged that thinblocks patch-- even though it would have no space savings when speaking to another copy of itself, which indicates that they merged it without even enough tests to show it helped. Today they began posting claiming that Core 'sabotaged' their project; which caused me to look at what they were actually doing in order to defend my reputation. After a quick review of their approach I realized that their design was fundamentally flawed and would fork the network, and was actually protected by the code they took from core that they were complaining about. They responded that they'd "noticed" that sometimes it didn't get all the transactions it needed and were working on making it fetch them-- apparently unaware that they cannot reliably fetch them (they can only fetch ones that had been 'recently' offered). Avoiding problems like this takes an incredible amount of review and testing even by the most experienced developers. If the testing isn't even enough to detect that two copies of the same node don't even get any space savings, it surely isn't going to detect a network splitting effect that only happens due to mempool eviction... or god knows whatever other bugs lurk inside. To me, going on the attack against Bitcoin Core for the regular maintenance of it's own software, while paying little attention do the deficient testing that failed to notice that the functionality didn't function is a really significant and objective warning sign that XT's developers do not currently have the resources or disposition required to maintain safe Bitcoin node software. The critical result of that inadequate testing was a failure to discover network forking bug. Implicitly depending on review from contributors to another project which they attack and slander is not a realistic and professional development practice.
Current Bitcoin XT contains a network splitting bug. Rather than behaving responsibly, the maintainers of BitcoinXT are smearing the developers of Bitcoin Core (whom had nothing to do with their bug). /r/bitcoinxt
[#2] A row over changing the software that produces bitcoins could split the virtual currency, core developers say. Bitcoin XT, a new version, is currently being recommended by the currency's chief scientist, Gavin Andresen. [worldnews] 0 comments
One secretive person (Theymos) owns /bitcoin and holds the opinion that the Bitcoin protocol should not be easily changed, and certainly not via a contentious hardfork. Their reasoning is that if you can change something via contentious hardfork, you can change anything, even the 21 million limit. Therefor they spread their believe (FUD) that such a hardfork would split the network. And anyone who disagrees and tries to push a hardfork is by their definition an attacker (or a fool). That is how they justify censorship & attacks against anything or anyone who tries to hardfork the network (so Bitcoin XT, then Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited). But (as I see it) the main reason a blocksize increase via hardfork is contentious is because it is contentious. There aren't actually many people who want a 1Mb limit. There is just a whole bunch of people who fear a contentious/dangerous Hardfork. You could say that Bitcoin has been paralysed with fear. Big blockers (and most people on /btc) are a bit more pragmatic. And most believe a simple majority must be in charge. Because the alternative is that a random minority can veto anything and thereby change Bitcoin for the worse. And a non-change like, not upgrading the limit, is definitely a huge change(!). If the intended use of the limit changes, then that should need consensus (and a proper design). Basically we want the free-market to be in charge, because that will lead to the most profitable Bitcoin, and by extension the most ideal blocksizes (which clearly needs to be balanced). What we now have is FUD and over-engineers being in control. Which is ironic because /bitcoin likes to call /btc FUD-sters. When it is clearly the other way around. The sad thing is that this sub desperately wants to believe in conspiracy theories, that Blockstream is behind all this. Something I can't disprove, but there is also not enough proof for this theory that you should take it seriously. The motivation of Core supporters/small blockers already makes total sense, and is very consistent. There is no need for alternative motives on either side. Edit: Btw, you can change anything (even the 21 million limit) via soft-fork. So the obsession with softforks over at /bitcoin makes no sense. The only advantage it still has is that only Blockstream/Core is willing to put the time/effort to make these complicated soft-forks, big thanks to VC funding. Which effectively puts Core in charge, and effectively makes Bitcoin a technocracy. Yet ironically you see Core dev's continue to say they are not in control. TL;DR: Minority veto's, softforks forever, censorship and attacks clearly put Core in control of Bitcoin's future.
History of BitcoinXT and Mike Hearn as you know it. + EDA / DA bonus discussion
Although I've tried to research and understand the history of bitcoin as best as I can there are gaps in my knowledge and understanding. The quote below is from bashco.
Aside from the fact that Mike Hearn was secretly working for the R3 bank cartel and his shills wanted to hand him control of the Bitcoin code repository on a silver platter? BitcoinXT would inevitably have split the network and caused a lot of people to lose money due to factors like the lack of replay protection, lack of exchange support, lack of developer support, etc. It would have been even worse than the clusterfuck that Bcash caused when they completely abandoned Satoshi's white paper by resetting difficulty and gutting the entire difficulty adjustment algorithm. That's really just scratching the surface, but it very well could have been the end of Bitcoin. Thankfully that attack and the attacks that followed were all thwarted.
I'd like to hear your perspective and perhaps start a debate on this. Please tell me the history of BitcoinXT as you recall. Is there any truth to Bashco's statements? Has anyone heard of Mike's links to the R3 bank cartel? Regarding the difficulty Algo, the EDA as it was called, my understanding was that was put in place to ensure the survival of BCH even if it was the minority chain. I've also heard other theories that it was intended to cripple BTC by causing wild swings of hash power. My gut instinct tells me that it was the former intention, but it didn't function as well as intended, and that's why they fixed it pretty quickly with the new DA that is still current. My personal opinion is that it's an improvement on bitcoin and is not something that fundamentally alters the properties of bitcoin as intended in the white paper. Or does it? Does the new DA change an important property of bitcoin that was intended by Satoshi in the white paper?
What if Bitcoin Core becomes a major altcoin after a fork?
Hello. This is from a conversation about the Bitcoin XT fork over here. First I will post the full quote then reply to individual quotes:
But as for the three coins though- remember that unless explicitly told not to, nodes on the two chains will still try to relay transactions to each other. That leads to a few scenarios:
Old-coin transaction with low fee- overloaded Core chain rejects, 101 chain accepts. Core chain thinks coins haven't moved, 101 chain thinks they have. Double spend possible (spend once with 101 merchant and low fee, spend again with Core merchant and higher fee). Since old coins make up a majority of the market right now, this attack may become common.
Old-coin transaction with high fee- overloaded Core chain accepts, 101 chain accepts. Both chains see coins have moved. As long as they are moved to a fresh address they stay 'old' and in sync on both chains. Double spend not possible.
Core-coin transaction- rejected by 101 chain as originating address doesn't have coins in it. Double spend not possible.
101-coin transaction- rejected by Core chain either due to insufficient fee or because originating address doesn't have coins in it. Double spend not possible.
The real problem comes when an address gets mixed coins- for example when you take an old-coin address (such as a paper wallet) and then send coins to it in a transaction that only works on one chain. Now you have two copies of that address, one on each chain, each with different ideas about how many coins are in the address and where they came from.
Double spend possible (spend once with 101 merchant and low fee, spend again with Core merchant and higher fee). Since old coins make up a majority of the market right now, this attack may become common.
Wait a second. How many people believe this gibberish? If Core is making blocks much slower than 101, won't RBF make it extremely easy to keep the 101 transactions from being included on Core? [Update: Apparently it will be easier to split the dual-chain-bitcoins by tainting them. Please ignore my instructions before this edit on New Years day 2016.] This doesn't even require a modified Bitcoin Core client, does it? That isn't really a "double spend", that is why a Core client allows it. Let me name the three currencies that will exist after the fork:
Core-bitcoin - bitcoin that is ONLY valid on the Core chain
101-bitcoin - bitcoin that is ONLY valid on the 101 chain
Dual-chain-bitcoin - bitcoin residing at the same addresses on both chains and for which a transaction could be valid on both chains (I'm not exactly sure what happens when derps send different transactions to the same addresses on both chains but I do know this is a bad idea.)
The only way to be sure we have "Bitcoin" back is if Core reverts 101 and everyone gives up on 101. If that happens it means that the transaction on the 101 chain was not really a Bitcoin transaction. Either everyone gives up on Core, or we have three currencies, or everyone splits all their dual-chain-bitcoin into the two currencies, and/or Core reverts 101. None of these scenarios require "double spending" or a "51% attack", they are conflicting/competing definitions of Bitcoin.
Old-coin transaction with high fee- overloaded Core chain accepts, 101 chain accepts. Both chains see coins have moved. As long as they are moved to a fresh address they stay 'old' and in sync on both chains. Double spend not possible.
You don't want to be waiting for confirmations on Core every time you spend your 101-bitcoins do you? So the first thing anyone with a brain will want to do is split their dual-chain-bitcoin. Do this by sending bitcoin to a new wallet on the 101 chain and using RBF to send it to a different wallet on Core.
The real problem comes when an address gets mixed coins- for example when you take an old-coin address (such as a paper wallet) and then send coins to it in a transaction that only works on one chain. Now you have two copies of that address, one on each chain, each with different ideas about how many coins are in the address and where they came from.
That is a small educational problem for the clueless. The real problem is if Bitcoin whales choose Core. Splitting the dual-chain-bitcoin is going to be a pain in the ass if Core is going very slow with all blocks being filled to the max. Therefore Core miners are likely to use another patch that will prioritize ALL transactions by fee no matter when they were sent (okay you could call this legalized "double spending" if you consider unconfirmed transactions to be "spent"). The 101 believers will want to sell their Core-bitcoins so they pay very high transaction fees on the Core chain. They will pay these fees with "Bitcoins" they have already spent on the 101 chain so this will not be expensive if Core quickly dies as they believe it will. Then Theymos, etc, sell their 101-bitcoins and buy Core-bitcoins. Then more miners go back to Core because it becomes more profitable (even if they want to be paid in 101-bitcoins). We have observed how far the price of Bitcoin can fall when it is one currency and most of the bitcoin has hardly moved. Who is going to buy all Theymos' and Satoshi's 101-bitcoins? Bitstamp? BitPay? CORE MINERS?!?!? Can they even afford to do so? Miners may have to mine both chains just to pay their bills. Then 101 "investors" may have big problem. You could make a poll of Bitcoin holders and ask when they might buy/sell 101-bitcoins or Core-bitcoins, but just like the miner "votes" this isn't any kind of binding commitment. A well-funded Ethereum prediction market would be a very good way to predict the outcome of this battle, especially after the decentralized Bitcoin exchange Dapp has had its "security audit". Notice that Satoshi will soon have a third chain they can buy into without identifying themselves or trusting an exchange. She could also bet on this prediction market. If she is lucky, someone will write an exchange Dapp to allow separate trading of Core-bitcoins, 101-bitcoins, and dual-chain-bitcoins. Bitcoin/ASIC owners would be wise to make sure this Dapp will be available. If Satoshi's only way out of 101 or Core, is to trade them for Ether or Dogecoin, this bitcoin's price may fall through the floor and many sha256 miners could go out of business.
An incomplete history of the Bitcoin Cash's origin and the Minimum Viable Fork project
A common meme is that Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and Craig Wright are the ones responsible for the creation of Bitcoin Cash. This is untrue. Those are figureheads who played a role in popularizing or (for Bitmain, allegedly) funding later development, but they played almost no part until Bitcoin Cash development was long since underway. The Bitmain UAHF contingency plan blog post was made on 2017-06-14. This was the first event in Bitcoin Cash's history that reached a wide audience, but it came 15 months after work on what later became Bitcoin Cash began. The public decision to do a minority hard fork happened 2016-07-31, and was spearheaded by singularity87 and ftrader. ftrader did most of the initial development, which he had started back in March 2016. Even back then, the plan to fork before Segwit's activation was clear:
Bitmain was merely joining their effort in 2017, not starting it. Bitcoin Cash evolved out of the Minimum Viable Fork project that ftradeFreetrader started in March 2016, and which was discussed in /btcfork and /btc. Freetrader blogged about it quite a bit. If you read through his posts, you can see his initial prototype was built on Bitcoin Classic. In Oct 2016, a MVF version based on Bitcoin Core was made. Development on MVF stalled during the latter half of 2016 when it seemed like Bitcoin Unlimited's emergent consensus proposal was likely to gain adoption, but heated up again in early 2017 when BU lost support after a few remote crash 0-day exploits were found and used against BU on March 15 and again in April. Freetrader restarted his MVF work on Bitcoin Unlimited in April. The first mention of Bitcoin ABC is from May 7, 2017. The ABC project was started by deadalnix, but with mostly the same goal as ftrader's work using Core as the base instead of BU or Classic. At that time, ABC was just Core 0.14 minus RBF and Segwit; it didn't yet have any blocksize changes. Deadalnix reached out to Freetrader and asked him if he wanted to help, which Freetrader did. Freetrader made the first prototype of Bitcoin ABC with a blocksize limit other than 1 MB on or before May 21, 2017, while still working in parallel on the Bitcoin Unlimited version of the MVF. Ftrader and deadalnix continued to work on Bitcoin ABC for a couple months before Bitmain even mentioned their support for the contingency plan, and their contingency plan was basically the same as what ftrader and singularity87 had proposed back in June 2016 (but with more refinements and details worked out) -- perform a minority hard fork from BTC before Segwit activates to increase the blocksize limit, and do so in a way that ensures as clean a split as possible. Bitcoin ABC was announced to the public on July 1st, 2017, by ftrader and by deadalnix, about 2-3 months after deadalnix and ftrader began working on it, and 2 weeks after Bitmain announced its intent to support the UAHF. On the date that BCH forked, there were four separate compatible full-node clients:
Bitcoin ABC, developed mostly by Amaury Sechet/deadalnix and freetrader;
Bitcoin Unlimited, developed by the BU team (Andrew Stone/thezerg, Peter Tchipper, Andrea Suisani/sickpig, Peter Rizun, freetrader, and a few others, and funded by anonymous donors in 2016 for their Emergent Consensus proposal);
Bitcoin XT, developed initially by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and later by Tom Harding/dgenr8 and dagurval
Of those developers, the only ones who received money while they were working on these clients were possibly deadalnix (alleged but unconfirmed to be paid by Bitmain), and Gavin (MIT Digital Currency Initiative). Everybody else was a volunteer. At the time, BU's funds only paid for conferences, travel expenses, and a $20,000 bug bounty; BU didn't start paying its developers until after the BCH hard fork. A lot of Bitcoin Cash's early support came from Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. ViaBTC's exchange was the first to offer BCH trading pairs, and ViaBTC's pool was the first public pool to support BCH. I've also heard that Haipo Yang was the one who coined the name Bitcoin Cash -- can anyone confirm or deny this? ViaBTC played a significant role in BCH's deployment, far more than Roger Ver or Craig Wright, and had a comparable amount of influence to Bitmain. However, this was not obvious on the outside, because Haipo Yang is the kind of person who quietly builds things that work, instead of just being a prominent talking head like Craig Wright and Roger Ver are. Roger himself actually didn't fully support Bitcoin Cash until after the fork. Initially, he had his hopes up for Segwit2x, as did I. His name was conspicuously missing in an Aug 1, 2017 article about who supports Bitcoin Cash. It was only after Segwit2x failed on Nov 8, 2017 that he started to support BCH. Craig Wright on the other hand did praise the Bitcoin Cash initiative early on, probably largely because he hated Segwit for some reason. But he didn't do anything to help create BCH; he only spoke in favor of it. (I really wish he hadn't. His involvement in BCH fostered a lot of false beliefs among Bitcoin Cash's userbase, like the belief that selfish mining doesn't exist. We were only able to get rid of his crazed followers when BSV forked off. I'm very grateful that happened. But I digress.) Most people didn't take him seriously, but a modest minority bought his narrative hard. He was a pretty minor player at the time, and remained so until 2018. These are the people who created Bitcoin Cash. It's easy to place all the credit/blame on the most vocal figureheads, but the marketing department does not create the product; they just sell it. If you weren't around during the product's development, it's hard to know who actually built the thing and who was just a bandwagon joiner. CSW and Roger just hopped on the bandwagon. Jihan Wu/Bitmain and Haipo Yang/ViaBTC joined the crew of the bandwagon and contributed substantially to its development and survival, but by the time they had joined the bandwagon was already in motion. The real instigators were the community members like ftrader, deadalnix, singularity87, the BU crew, the Electron Cash crew (Calin Culianu, kyuupichan, Jonald Fyookball, etc.) and the many others who contributed in various ways that I haven't documented. For those of you who played a role or know of someone else who did but whom I didn't mention in this post, please make a comment below so we can all hear about it.
A Guide To The BCH Fork on November 15th - Be Informed!
BCH November 15th Forking Guide
Intro As you may have heard, on 15th November 2018 the Bitcoin Cash Blockchain will fork into at least two separate chains. We felt it our duty to provide information to the community on the situation that we hope will offer some clarity on this rather complex situation.
What Is A Fork? A fork occurs when at least one group of miners decide to follow a separate set of rules from the current consensus protocol. Due to the way bitcoin is designed, these miners will then operate on a separate network from the current network. This was in fact how Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash was created from the original Bitcoin. Both changed the consensus rules in different ways that made them incompatible. To make the current situation slightly more complex, there are to be two sets of miners that are changing the protocol rules away from the current protocol. It is not expected that the currently operating consensus rules will be in operation by any significant set of miners after November 15th. This means that after November 15th there will be two new sets of competing protocol rules. For simplicity these will be described as the BitcoinABC ruleset and the BitcoinSV ruleset (although other implementations such as Bitcoin Unlimited, bcash, bchd, BitcoinXT and bitprim all also have the ABC consensus ruleset). This is quite a unique fork situation as one side (BitcoinSV) has indicated that they will be willing to attack their competition (BitcoinABC) using reorgs and doublespends to destabilise and reduce confidence in it.
BitcoinABC Fork Details The main new features in the BitcoinABC that make it incompatible with the current protocol are CTOR and DSV. To summarise: CTOR (Canonical Transaction Ordering) is a technology that allows blocks to be transmitted in a much more efficient way. This means that as blocks become larger as the network gains more adoption, the hardware and bandwidth requirements on nodes is decreased. This reduces centralisation pressures and allows us to scale the network with fewer adverse effects. You can read more about CTOR in this excellent ARTICLE by u/markblundeberg. DSV (CheckDataSigVerify) is a technology that allows oracles directly on the Bitcoin blockchain. This means that the transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain can be dependent on actions that happen in the real world. For example you could bet on the weather tomorrow, or if a specific candidate wins an election, all directly on the blockchain. You can read more about DSV at this excellent ARTICLE by u/mengerian.
BitcoinSV Fork Details The main new features in the BitcoinSV that make it incompatible with the current protocol are an increase in the default block size limit to 128MB, increase of the 201 opcode limit within Bitcoin’s script system to a maximum of 500 opcodes, and a new set of opcodes including; OP_MUL, OP_LSHIFT, OP_RSHIFT, OP_INVERT. The increase in the default block size limit will in theory allow miners on the BitcoinSV ruleset to produce and propagate blocks up to 128MB in size. It may be the case that the current state of the network cannot handle, or at least sustain, 128MB blocks but this will allow miners to decide if they want to try and produce blocks over 32MB (the current protocol limit agreed upon by miners). Increasing the opcode limit will allow miners to make transactions using scripts of larger lengths. This means that more complex scripts can be developed. The new opcodes allow new operations to happen within the Bitcoin scripting system.
What Are Your Options? When the fork happens your coins will become available on both chains. This is because both chains will share the same blockchain history up until the point the fork occurs. Things are unfortunately not quite as simple as that (when are they ever in cryptoland?). Transactions that would be valid on both chains will occur on both chains. Your transactions will be considered valid on both chains as long as you do not use any of the exclusive features from either ruleset, or use inputs from transactions that are considered invalid on one of the chains. You can alternatively split your coins so that you can control them exclusively on each chain. So what should you do? We won’t recommend what you should do with your own money, and this is not financial advice, but here are some of your options.
Do Nothing and HODL The simplest option is to keep your Bitcoin Cash in a wallet you control and wait for things to blow over. Make sure you have the private keys and or the seed written down in at least one place to be able to recover your funds if needed. As long as you do not move your funds they will be available on both chains after the fork. Risks - Price volatility. Like always the price can go up and down any amount. Only risk what you can afford to lose.
Sell BCH for Fiat Another simple option is to sell your BCH for fiat. This means moving your Bitcoin Cash to an exchange such as Bitstamp.net, Kraken.com or Coinbase, and then selling them for a fiat currency. You may also consider then withdrawing your funds to your bank account for extra security (exchanges have been known to implode with everyone’s funds every now and again). Risks - If the BCH price increase while you hold fiat your BCH holdings will be less if and when you buy back. Exchanges and banks can confiscate your money if they like (that why love Bitcoin remember). By selling you may also be liable for taxes in your jurisdiction.
Split Your Coins and HODL If you want to be ready for anything then you can split your coins after the fork occurs. This means that you will be able to control your coins exclusively on each chain. You will still need to make sure you have your wallet(s) backed up and have the private keys and seeds written down somewhere. To split your coins you can use a tool developed on Electron Cash HERE. This is unfortunately not a simple tool to use right now. Make sure to read the tips and advice given in that thread. You can also use http://forkfaucet.cash/ to receive a tiny amount of split coins to your address(es) so that they will become split once you spend from them. Risks - This has the same risks as simply HODLing your BCH. You should also be aware that some services have decided to refuse to use split coins during the fork. This means that if you send them split coins they will not allow you to spend them. These services include: Yours.org, moneybutton, HandCash, CentBee and CoinText.
Split Your Coins and Sell Some If you interested in gambling on which chain will be more successful you can split your coins using the method above, and can then send coins from either chain to an exchange that allows buying and selling of specific sides of the chain. Most exchanges have decided to close deposits and withdrawals of BCH and even trading of BCH until the outcome of the forks have become more clear. After the fork occurs exchanges will likely make announcements about whether which chain they will support (potentially both), and you will then be able to trade each fork as separate cryptocurrencies. Risks - By selling your coins on one of the chains you will no longer be invested in that side of the fork. In the case that one side of the fork ceases to exist and you are only holding coins on that side, you will have lost that money. By selling you may also be liable for taxes in your jurisdiction.
Summary It is unfortunate that Bitcoin Cash has to go through a fork without unanimous consensus on the new protocol rules. The unique situation with this fork, in particular, has presented some interesting new issues, and it is likely that we as a community will learn a lot from it. We hope that in similar situations in the future that the major entities in the industry, including miners, developers, businesses and community leaders can come together to find compromise that keeps the ecosystem stable and focused on adoption. Further Resources You can get more information at bitcoincash.org, bitcoinabc.org, bitcoinsv.io, and bitcoin.com. If you have further questions about this or just want to discuss the fork in general, we encourage you to join our chat at bitcoincashers.org/chat and join the conversation.
Don't agree with POSM? Think only hash matters? Then by all means delete your social media account and buy a miner and leave us all alone.
The SV shilling has reached epic proportions. I find it rather amusing that this team of trolls has absolutely plastered this entire sub with their drivel about POSM. Pot, meet kettle. They don't even have the slightest clue what they're talking about. One seems to think that ABC has implemented a fixed block size cap. Huh? Same guy told me it's better to "just raise the cap and let miners figure it out." Newsflash.: miners are figuring it out. It's called Graphene and it'll work great with CTOR. Another one seems to believe that "only hash matters". As though BCH is the majority chain. Yet another seems to believe "SV good because backed by miners" but at the same time "ABC bad because backed by miners"....? I'm glad to participate in an uncensored sub where these bozos can clown around and make fools of themselves for everyone else to see. But I'll be more glad when they figure their shit out, or leave. If CSW and his buddies want to fork the coin it's their prerogative. BCH is permissionless. Knock yourselves out. But be aware. ABC, XT, BU, Flowee, Bitcoin.com, Coinbase, and many more are in agreement on BCH. It's you guys that are out in left field. Why? Because you think the default value in a config file should be 128 not 32. That's it. Yeah there's an opcode too but who cares. All anyone here talks about is how SV is "raising the block size." But the block size doesn't need "raising". It is configurable. don't you know that? So. You're going to split the community over a default value in a user-editable config file. This is like splitting the community over the order of items in a drop down list. Really?! But again it's your right to fork. I wish you guys the best... until the first time one of you mines hostile blocks on the BCH chain. Then I wish you the worst. Because you'll be doing BTC's dirty work for them. WAKE UP. Nothing will make Gmax happier than watching BCH fight itself. For the sake of all that is holy, wake up and call this stupid fork off.
A reminder of who Craig Wright is and the benefits to BCH now he has gone.
This needs to be repeated every so often on this subreddit so new people can understand the history of the fork of BCH into BCH and BSV From Jonald Fyookball's article https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/bitcoin-cash-is-finally-free-of-faketoshi-great-days-lie-ahead-bb0c833e4c5d Craig S. Wright (CSW) leaving the Bitcoin Cash community is a wonderful thing. This self-described “tyrant” has been expunged, and now we can get back to our mission of bringing peer-to-peer electronic cash to the world. The markets will rebound when they see the chaos is over, but regardless of the price, we will keep building. Nothing will stop the sound money movement. Calling Out Bad Behavior As Rick Falkvinge recently explained, there is a difference between small-minded gossiping about personalities and legitimately calling out bad behavior. CSW’s bad behavior must be called out, because he has done tremendous damage to Bitcoin Cash (and possibly even the entire cryptocurrency sector). The brief history is that he gained his reputation by claiming to be Bitcoin’s creator (Satoshi Nakamoto). He said he would provide “extraordinary proof” but he has never done so. Supposedly, he did some “private signings” to a few people, and this allowed him to gain influence in the BCH community. The destruction he has been causing was not widely recognized until after a huge mess had been made. Thanks to u/Contrarian__ for the following compliation of CSW’s misgivings: Some background on Craig’s claim of being Satoshi, for the uninitiated:
He faked blog posts He faked PGP keys He faked contracts and emails He faked threats He faked a public key signing He has a well-documented history of fabricating things bitcoin and non-bitcoin related He faked a bitcoin trust to get free money from the Australian government but was caught and fined over a million dollars.
And specifically concerning his claim to be Satoshi:
He has provided no independently verifiable evidence He is not technically competent in the subject matter His writing style is nothing like Satoshi’s He called bitcoin “Bit Coin” in 2011 when Satoshi never used a space He actively bought and traded coins from Mt. Gox in 2013 and 2014 He was paid millions for ‘coming out’ as Satoshi as part of the deal to sell his patents to nTrust — for those who claim he was ‘outed’ or had no motive
Caught Red Handed Plagiarizing No respectable academic, scientist, or professional needs to stoop so low as to steal and take credit for the work of others — least of all Satoshi. Yet, CSW has already been caught at least 3 times plagiarizing.
His paper on selfish mining has full sections copied almost verbatim from a paper written by Liu & Wang. His “Beyond Godel” paper which purports to claim that Bitcoin script is turing complete, is heavily plagiarized. A paper on block propagation was blatantly and intentionally plagiarized.
Can’t Even Steal Code Correctly CSW was also caught attempting to plagiarize a “hello world” program (the simplest of all computer programs). He apparently does not understand base58 or how Bitcoin address checksums work (both of these are common knowledge to experienced Bitcoiners), and has made other embarrasing errors. So How Did Such an Obvious Fraud Gain So Much Power and Influence? There are no easy answers here. It seems that as humans, we are very susceptible to manipulation and misinformation. The greatest weapon against sinister forces is a well-educated populace. This is something that can only improve over the long run. The “Satoshi factor” is a powerful one and appeals to the glamorization of a mythical figure. Even people such as myself, who are technically astute, gave CSW all benefit of the doubt until the evidence staring us in the face could no longer be denied. The seduction of the BCH community was also facilitated by CSW becoming a strong advocate for the on-chain/big-block scaling movement at a time when the community was dying to hear it. This message, delivered with a brazen, in-your-face style, was a sharp contrast to anything seen before. In addition, CSW was able to find obscure topics (“2pda”), network topology, etc, that seemed to establish him as an expert with esoteric knowledge above and beyond anyone else. Basically, he was using technobabble, but it wasn’t immediately obvious except to very technical people… who were then attacked and discredited. Eventually, as more and more of the community began to realize his technical claims were bogus, CSW banned those people from his twitter feed and slack channel, leaving only a group of untechnical “believers”, which the larger BCH community referred to as “the church” AKA the Cult-of-Craig. Finally, if some believed that CSW possesed Satoshis’s stash of 1M BTC, then they may have been gnawing to get a piece of it. But it may turn out that these are the coins that never were. Broken Promises If this article so far seems like an “attack piece” on CSW, remember it is important to get all the facts out in the open. We’ll get to the silver lining and bright future in a moment… but let’s continue here to “get it all out”. One of the biggest ways that CSW has damaged the community is to make an endless series of broken promises. This caused others to wait, to waste time on his unproven ideas and solutions, and to postpone or drop their own ideas and initiatives.
He said he was building a mining pool to “stop SegWit” He said he was bringing big companies to use the BCH chain He said that he was providing a fungibility solution based on blind threshold signatures He said he was providing novel technology based on oblivious transfers He said he was providing a method where people could do atomic swaps without using timelocks He said he was going to show everyone how we can do bilinear pairings using secp256k1 He said he was going to release source code for nakasendo He said he was releasing some information that would “kill the lightning network” He said he was going to show everyone how the selfish mining theory is wrong He said he was going to show everyone how we can tokenize everything in the universe squared He said a few times “big things are coming in 2 months”
How CSW Has Damaged the BCH Community In addition to the broken promises, the BCH community was wounded due to:
The division of the community (with classic divide and conquer tactics) Loss of focus. Huge amounts of drama and distraction from building and adoption Investor confidence has been shaken due to uncertainty and chaos. BCH is a laughing stock to outsiders due to CSW’s antics Gemini deployment of BCH and other rollouts paused Loss of developer talent due to toxic and abrasive personality Various patent and legal threats
The Hash War Event and Split into BitcoinSV Every 6 months, BCH has a scheduled network upgrade. This is technically a “hard fork” but a non-contentious fork does not result in a split of the chain — it is simply new network rules being activated. Bitcoin Cash has multiple independent developer groups including Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin XT, Bitprim, BCHD, bcash, parity, Flowee, and others. The nChain group, led by CSW, introduced an alternate set of changes a week before the agreed cut-off date, intentionally causing a huge controversey. These changes were incompatible with the changes being discussed between the other groups. nChain objected to the changes being proposed (cannonical transaction ordering) despite specifically agreeing to it almost a year earlier. The last minute objections were in my opinion, an attempt at sabotage. An emergency meeting was held in Bangkok to attempt to resolve the differences between the nChain group and the rest of the community. Not only did CSW refuse to listen to the other presentations, he walked out of the meeting after his own speech had been given. The other nChain people refused to discuss the technical issues. After this, nChain built their own software (“BitcoinSV”) to attempt to compete for the Bitcoin Cash network. But rather than split off to follow their own set of rules, they threatened to attack Bitcoin Cash. Their attitude was “you follow our rules or we burn it all down”. The CSW sycophants adopted a strange interpretation of the Bitcoin whitepaper and proselytized the idea that if nChain could “out hash” everyone else, the market should be obliged to follow them. This faulty thinking was eloquently debunked by u/CatatonicAdenosine. As it turns out, nChain was unable in any case to win at their own game. But Here’s the Obviously Good News… CSW is gone. It’s over. He can do whatever he wants on the BitcoinSV chain. He will never be allowed to influence Bitcoin Cash again. And all the negative things and negative people that were a consequence of his involvement in Bitcoin Cash are gone with him. As a community, we will redouble our efforts and get back to our mission of peer-to-peer electronic cash. We will learn to work together better than ever, and we will learn to detect and punish bad behavior sooner. The attempted attacks with hashpower also sparked innovation and a focus on the problem of how to stop such attacks in the future. This is only making Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and the entire class of Proof-of-Work coins stronger. Nothing will stop us. The reason why millions of dollars were spent to attack and also to defend Bitcoin Cash is because it’s something truly worth fighting over. It’s sound money. It’s permissionless. It’s what Satoshi Nakamoto wrote about in 2008. It’s Bitcoin, a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Go to the profile of Jonald Fyookball Jonald Fyookball More from Jonald Fyookball Jimmy Song Tries to Claim Bitcoin Cash is “Fiat Money”… Seriously? Go to the profile of Jonald Fyookball Jonald Fyookball Related reads 600 Microseconds Go to the profile of Awemany Awemany Related reads The scams in Crypto Go to the profile of Craig Wright (Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin.) Craig Wright (Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin.) Responses
A personal opinion with a collection of links and quotes
I don't take much joy in writing this post, however, with the upcoming fork and all the drama surrounding it, I felt compelled to do so. One thing I have advocated over the years along with many others in this space is to judge ideas based on their merit, and not based on the person presenting the idea. However, it's crucial that along with this general rule of thumb, that we as humans also align with our own philosophical ideas, morals, and ethics when we make decisions. Otherwise we end up with a conflict of our own self-interests; i.e., cognitive dissonance. For example, let's just say I'm completely against the state. For this example, let's say I'm also an anarchist. Hypothetically speaking, someone presents an idea that is technically sound, and is overall an amazing idea by itself. I may like it a lot! However, I find out later the person presenting the idea is completely pro-state, and has made statements that he will use this idea in order to promote statist ideas and agendas. Even though the idea itself is sound and good, I know that the person presenting the idea has different principles than me that are in so much conflict with my own philosophies in life...that I will then begin to discount the idea -- not because the idea itself is bad -- but because I know the person behind the idea will use it in ways that don't align with my own personal life views. Another thing I've advocated over the years is to think critically, independently, and have an open mind. I believe I've stayed true to this, and this is exactly what I am doing here. Bitcoin is built by humans, and is not artificial intelligence (at least not yet). This means, although ideas alone can have merit, we must also consider all the factors that go into an idea and how that idea will be used. If this goes into conflict with our life views, then we need to consider that as well when evaluating ideas. Below are a collection of links and quotes of Craig Wright, in just the order I found them and they present the following:
This person wants to be the King of Bitcoin, the sole ruler
This person wants full control of Bitcoin; if they could control 100% of hashing, he would
This person has no care for decentralization
This person does not care about anonymity at all
This person does not want permissionless innovation
This person cares more about the state than individual freedoms
This person is a patent troll who will undoubtedly use his patents for evil
This person is a liar (see plagiarism and previous claims to being Satoshi)
This person is pro-censorship (believes in blacklisting transactions and censoring discussion forums)
This person does not believe in unity and is dividing and fracturing us with the goal of gaining control
This person does not care about you or I, and certainly not the economic freedom of the world
The longer this war continues, the more it becomes clear that the intent of the war is to harm Bitcoin Cash, the true Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System. At this point, the SV hostile takeover has failed. The SV chain has decisively split away from the chain followed by all other BCH clients - ABC, XT, BU, and Flowee, among others. There will be no unified chain that includes SV. The market has decisively spoken out against SV. The only industry support it has at this point is from a handful of companies funded by nchain and a handful of politically motivated exchanges and thought leaders that are sympathetic to BTC and hostile to BCH (ie bitfinex). At this point, continued infighting serves only the goal of harming the mission of peer to peer cash. It is time to end the war and resume building peer to peer cash. I therefore call on my fellows for reconciliation. Lay down your arms, cease this senseless attack, come back to building Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System with us on BCH. We will welcome your return. Many of us - myself included - fell for our attackers lies and deceits, or were unsure of their true motives, and allied with the attacker, or like myself, failed to recognize the attack for what it was until it was well nigh upon us. People make mistakes. People can learn from mistakes. That's part of being human. It's okay to admit that you have made a mistake. I myself have done so. However. If, going forward, you persist in supporting our attacker, you are therefore identifying yourself as an enemy of peer to peer cash. And make no mistake about it: there are many enemies of peer to peer cash amongst our attackers ranks, including, quite likely, our attackers themselves. We must not allow them to tear us apart. Now is the time to quit fighting and resume building. I therefore call on all supporters of peer to peer cash to come forward, admit your mistakes as I have done, and be welcomed home. Let's continue forward by building what our enemy is most afraid of: Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System.
bitcoinxt was an abandoned and empty subreddit when Theymos began censoring Bitcoin. On that day bitcoinxt rapidly became the dominant on-chain scaler's subreddit. As people were banned en masse from Bitcoin thousands coalesced here (BitcoinXT being the name of the implementation being advocated by Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen). It would be weeks before Roger Ver acquired control of btc which later surpassed this subreddit very quickly. For a year the supporters of Bitcoin as cash were united before the November 2018 split which yielded Bitcoin SV. Going forward I would like this subreddit to again become a place where those that supported Satoshi's Vision can come and discuss the future of Bitcoin as Cash. Those inclined to support BTC can discuss their interests at Bitcoin and elsewhere. Those supporting BCH have btc. And while bitcoincashsv and bitcoinsv exist, I also think there is a place for bitcoinxt, particularly when reconnecting with those that want peer-to-peer cash to succeed but who disengaged or gave up (consensus is hard). In the coming days I will assemble people willing to help me in this effort. I thank everyone for their time, and wish you all well. Even those choosing to smash that unsubscribe button over there ->
The uncensored true Bitcoin Cash sub /r/btc is now the #1 crypto sub on reddit according to cryptosub.live, with more 7-day activity than both the censored /r/bitcoin and now /r/cryptocurrency as well. Congrats everyone! Bitcoin Cash will spread Economic Freedom worldwide!
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism"
Now we have people openly supporting a minPOW/UASF takeover attack with minority hash trying to steal the BCH ticker and brand. Lead ABC dev Amaury Sechet has admitted they will steal the ticker with minority hash rate. He is [the same guy that had seeked refuge in the Cult of Core and embarrassingly called us "bcash". Coinex and viabtc have also said they will steal the ticker for ABC, and assign the BSV ticker to the majority POW chain. This is an extremely worrying attack on Bitcoin. People need to realize that hash rate decides Bitcoin. And don't give strawmen arguments about Core has more POW. BCH was a voluntary departure from Core, we did not try to usurp the ticker with a dirty minPOW attack movement. If ABC wants to split off voluntarily and create an alt-coin then that is their right, but they will not usurp Bitcoin or change the system or Satoshi's design. Miners will decide the future of Bitcoin Cash, and this means if miners support ABV, BU, XT, or SV, we all should support it whichever implementation wins. If we don't follow the longest POW chain, then it means Bitcoin is broken.
In early 2009, the mysterious cryptocurrency developer working under the alias Satoshi Nakamoto released the first software program that implemented the digital currency bitcoin. Many of hese crypto make use of aspects that were already inherent in Satoshi's initial program and concept. Others take the bitcoin model and adapt or attempt to improve upon it. In some cases, bitcoin has spawned variations which are based on the same underlying concept and program but which are distinct from the original. It is through this forking process that various digital currencies with names similar to bitcoin have come to be: bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, and others. For the casual cryptocurrency investor, it can be difficult to tell the difference between these cryptocurrencies and to map the various forks onto a timeline. Below, we'll walk through many of the most important forks to the bitcoin blockchain over the past several years.
Hard Forks Hard forks are new versions of Bitcoin that are completely split from the original version. There are no transactions or communications between the two types of Bitcoin after a hard fork. They are separate from each other and the change is permanent. What this means is that if you are running the older Bitcoin software you will no longer be able to interact with users who upgraded to the newer software and vice versa. This is basically creating two types of currency, but in this case the currency is not interchangeable. You can think of forks like organizational splits, with one part of a company moving in one direction and another part of the company moving in another direction. That’s exactly what happened with Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Gold. These are all separate cryptocurrencies within the Bitcoin family and all operate independently with different rules. They are all still cryptocurrency, but are not the same as the original Bitcoin. The two biggest Bitcoin hard forks are Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold, although there are others as well. The different hard forks of Bitcoin have wildly varied pricing and different goals.
The Bitcoin Gold Bitcoin Gold is a different hard fork that occurred in October 2017 with the goal of making Bitcoin mining a more equitable process that only requires basic equipment for mining. It’s mined on standard graphics processing units instead of specific hardware developed exclusively for the mining of which are more expensive, limiting its availability to a few big players. One unique feature of the Bitcoin gold hard fork was a "post-mine," a process by which the development team mined 100,000 coins after the fork had taken place. Many of these coins were placed into a special "endowment," and developers have indicated that this endowment will be used to grow and finance the bitcoin gold ecosystem, with a portion of those coins being set aside as payment for developers as well. Bitcoin Classic When bitcoin XT declined, some community members still wanted block sizes to increase. In response, a group of developers launched Bitcoin Classic in early 2016. Unlike XT, which proposed increasing the block size to 8 megabytes, Classic intended to increase it to only 2 megabytes. The project also still exists today, with some developers strongly supporting Bitcoin Classic. Nonetheless, the larger crypto community seems to have generally moved on to other options. Bitcoin Unlimited Bitcoin Unlimited remains something of an enigma some two years after its release. The project's developers released code but did not specify which type of fork it would require. Bitcoin Unlimited set itself apart by allowing miners to decide on the size of their blocks, with nodes and miners limiting the size of blocks they accept, up to 16 megabytes. Bitcoin Cash In response to SegWit, some bitcoin developers and users decided to initiate a hard fork in order to avoid the protocol updates it brought about. Bitcoin cash was the result of this hard fork. It split off from the main blockchain in August 2017, when bitcoin cash wallets rejected bitcoin transactions and blocks. As of this writing, it is the fourth-largest digital currency by market cap, owing in part to the backing of many prominent figures in the cryptocurrency community and many popular exchanges. Bitcoin cash allows blocks of 8 megabytes and did not adopt the SegWit protocol.
In the wake of a recent network upgrade, a number of nodes have been separated from the bitcoin SV blockchain, a development that highlights why “hard forks” have long been the subject of passionate infighting among cryptocurrency developers. According to block explorer Blockchair, roughly 20 percent of BSV nodes are still running an older version of the software. It’s unclear why these nodes have failed to upgrade. It could because they didn’t know they simply didn’t get the memo, they forgot they were running an older version or their operators simply didn’t agree with the changes in the hard fork and opted to protest.
Bitcoin SV, a cryptocurrency not to be confused with bitcoin, is the brainchild of entrepreneur Craig Wright, who maintains that he created bitcoin. Wright is also currently embroiled in a lawsuit in the US that centers in part around the question of his claims to the Satoshi Nakamoto mantle. To oversimplify a complex debate, some argue hard forks are a clean upgrading mechanism for enhancing blockchains with new features, while detractors argue that hard forks can only be executed successfully by more centralized blockchains. The main cause of the problems with the large 210 MB block was not necessarily the large size, as bitcoin SV had other large blocks in the past, but that it contained a lot of transactions, which used a lot of memory to validate. Critics see this as another sign of centralization of the system because less nodes are having no trouble with blocks. But those in the bitcoin SV community don’t see this is a problem. Bigger blocks have had an impact on bitcoin SV in other ways as well. Our new instance will cost thousands of dollars per month to operate. As blocks continue to get larger and we have to upgrade the instance many times, this cost will balloon. https://preview.redd.it/nf9x682ta8w31.jpg?width=796&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd53fbd19ef86139f4792dec8920e2c80336a2d1
The concept of forks and the technology involved is extremely complex, but the easiest way to think about a Bitcoin fork is that it introduces a new set of rules for Bitcoin to follow. Because a new rule is introduced Bitcoin can choose to follow one set of rules or another set of rules, similar to a “fork in the road”. These forks allow for different buying opportunities. There are many different forks that serve different purposes. In this article you’ll learn about Bitcoin forks, specifically what “hard forks” are and what they mean for investors.
Bitcoin forks are defined variantly as changes in the protocol of the bitcoin network or as the situations that occur "when two or more blocks have the same block height" Forks are typically conducted in order to add new features to a blockchain, to reverse the effects of hacking or catastrophic bugs Forks of the client software
Forks require consensus to be resolved or else a permanent split emerges.
Bitcoin XT would enable these blocks to grow to 8MB. But this would mean XT was no longer compatible with existing Bitcoin software, creating, its detractors say, two separate currencies and Bitcoin itself is harmed by these “splits”. Whereas “airdrop” is a positive, promotional word, which plays to people’s greed for free money. That’s probably the second-worst possible way to present the matter—other than outright fraudulently implying that Bitcoin Plutonium XT With Ponies be somehow The New Bitcoin. Everything You Need to Know About the Bitcoin XT Split By Miguel Leiva-Gomez / Aug 22, 2015 / How Things Work , Internet Bitcoin has evolved from an idea in someone’s mind into the world’s most popular cryptocurrency within a few short years, transforming itself into a legitimate “money” that banks have actually begun to take seriously. Bitcoin XT. The first initiative to a block size increase that got some traction was in 2015 when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn introduced Bitcoin XT. Originally Bitcoin XT included an immediate increase of the block size from 1 MB to 8 MB and then subsequent increases every other year. This was an alternative Bitcoin client, based on the code Examples of this type of fork include Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited. Soft Fork. A soft fork is when the ruleset is tightened and the Yellow rules are completely covered by the Red rules (thus only Orange and Red rulesets). The chain split can occur whenever a miner creates a Red block.
Bitcoin - 80 Trillion Dollar Exit. I talk about how Bitcoin will eventually become an exit ramp from the crashing 80 trillion dollar financial system, the economic crisis, as well as the market ... BTC Bitcoin technical analysis and price prediction 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025. Where to buy cryptocurrency btc, how to buy cryptocurrency bitcoin? B... So today is the big day, August 1, and I've seen many people online wondering where and how to buy Bitcoin Cash. There's a number of exchanges dealing with Bitcoin Cash, my favorite being Bittrex. bitcoin stock symbol bitcoin split bitcoin symbol bitcoin stock market is bitcoin is bitcoin legal is bitcoin dead is bitcoin going up is bitcoin safe. Stock Split And Reverse Stock Split Explained: Why is BRK.B Split Good But USO Reverse Split Is Bad? ... Bitcoin Halving 2020: History & Price Prediction (A Simple Explanation) - Duration: 12:33 ...