Roger Ver: I Didn't Sign 12.5% Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Miner ...
Roger Ver: I Didn't Sign 12.5% Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Miner ...
Peter Rizun: BTC ($5,000 BTC/USD) vs BCH ($260 BCH/USD) is ...
[Exclusive Bitcoin Blockchain Breakdown] Correcting the ...
Peter Rizun Archives - Complete Bitcoin Guide
Peter Rizun News Crypto Breaking News
May Hardfork Scenario Analysis
As everyone probably knows by now, the BitcoinABC developers have pushed code (https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/releases/tag/v0.21.0) and done a code freeze on the release for May that includes a 5% tax on mined blocks (incl fees) and will be active on the network once 66% of miners have approved it. Bitcoin Unlimited opposes this (https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1229921793697124353) as do hundreds of other traders, developers, and miners (https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/f4qgry/lets_have_a_show_of_hands_who_supports_the_ifp/). So, come May there will obviously be some contention. Below are the possible scenarios and how they play out, any devs who can weigh in on the uncertainties would be helpful: Scenario 1:The IFP does not get 66% support and it never gets activated on the network. This is the smoothest outcome but does not appear likely given the miner support of the tax so far. But it would result in a unified BCH and no orphaning or forking would occur. Scenario 2:The IFP gets 66% support and the anti-IFP people concede and run the new ABC code to be in consensus. This basically is the "okay we give up you win" scenario where the ABC supporters who want the IFP triumph and the BCH community unites in consensus, supporting the tax. This seems unlikely given that the opposition to IFP is based on core principles around altering the protocol and what is appropriate for such cases. As such, if this does happen, it likely results in a decline in BCH price and perhaps even larger support for BSV. But, no new coin would arise out of this. Scenario 3:Some miners run the new ABC code and the network gets 66% support, but some miners and users refuse to support it and continue to run Bitcoin Unlimited. As I understand it, and Peter__R can correct me, the current BU code being run would just result in those miners running BU getting orphaned from the network. I am unclear on whether this will lead to a new chain being forked as well where BU supporters would then have a new chain with no replay protection. Those in the BCH community who can't stomach BSV or the IFP will find some way to fork into a new coin and preserve BCH as they think it should be. Feel free to add to this, I am just thinking outloud about what can happen in May. What do you guys think?
Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions
The BCH Miner Dev Fund has proven to be a huge topic in this community over the past week. There has been tons of discussions on it. Here is an attempt to compile some of the more relevant posts and discussions over the past several days into one post for reference. Obviously some of this will be overlapping and I know I will miss some posts so if I missed something major, just link to it in the comments so I can update this list. These are in no particular order. Original proposal
Vitalik: BCH, a chain that was born as a reaction to an ideology that claims that soft forks are the only legitimate way to make changes because they are "voluntary" is.... making a controversial soft fork and insinuating that it's voluntary"
Vin Armani: "My intuition is that not only will this cartel initiative go as planned, but that it will result in solid price gains for BCH and go down as one of the most important innovations in Bitcoin. Voluntary, time-constrained, free market solution to one of Bitcoin's greatest problems."
For me one thing has changed: A HK-based company will be now in charge of 12.5% of all mined coins. What do we do when chinese government (inevitably) starts to control it? How about a smart contract instead?
Remind me again why a simple transparent Crowdfunding contribution address run by a few parties who are regularly audited wouldn’t solve the dev funding problem in a decentralized manner overnight? I would contribute monthly.
From a BCH security perspective, users are far more important than hashpower. If BCH is still only doing 0.3 TPS ten years from now, BCH will be worth a very tiny fraction of today's $330 price. The Dev Fund has many obvious concerns, but so does doing nothing.
First, I want to say that I believe that Bitcoin (BTC) will moon and that lambo will rain, for several reasons that I won’t explain here and now. So please don't shit on me or down vote this post without explaining yourself properly. I'm saying this because the crypto community is full of young and emotional person insulting each other all the time without being able to explain their view clearly. I’m just sharing my story and my opinion, if I say something wrong, please let me know. No need to be emotional. My story: I’m French (Forgive my English), a software engineer, working from home, previously in the banking industry, big noob in blockchain code related. I have been supporting bitcoin for a couple of times now, unfortunately I discovered it a bit late, promoting it to people around me as the peer to peer cash system and hoping that it will give us our financial freedom. During this bear market and after losing a big part of my coins, I finally took the time to get a better understanding of each coin I’m holding and I quickly realised that Bitcoin Cash wasn’t a scam, that Bitcoin BTC is purely a speculative asset, the playground of professional traders, used to rekt noobs and that Lightning network will end as custodial wallets because no one will take the time/risk for opening/closing/securing a channel, especially poor people (few billions). There is no benefit for the average user in maintaining a LN node. I believe it will be more interesting to mine Bitcoin rather than maintaining a LN node. So basically, I lost faith in the promise made by the Lightning Network which made me focusing on why Bitcoin Cash is the answer to a decentralized peer-to peer electronic cash system. I can confess that in the past I used to believe that second layer solution was the solution for everything, but I changed my mind. To make it simple, BCH allows to make instant payment for very cheap whereas BTC can’t and won’t. For each crypto project, I look at those different points: 1. Length of the chain BTC and BCH are sharing the longest chain, it has been working well without any issues since now 10 years. No other project has such a good track record. This make me feel confident that the chance that this will continue to work as well for years or decades. 2. Community behind it A good community for me is when you see technical people, risking their reputation/identity by posting videos, writing stuff and talking in public events about the project they support. Based on that, I believe the BCH community is the biggest of all. By technical people I mean someone talking using technical approach to back their opinion rather than beliefs based on emotions. Usually in the crypto space, those people are developers but it’s not always the case. I made a small list of technical people supporting BCH: -Peter R. Rizun: Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Unlimited. -Vitalik Butterin (he often showed his support regarding BCH but didn’t produce any content) -Jonald Fyookball: Electron Cash Developer -Jonathan Toomim: Bitcoin cash developer who made interesting proof regarding scaling onchain) -George Hotz: no need to present this awesome crazy dude! -Amaury Séchet: Bitcoin Cash Developer and French! 😊 -Rick Falkvinge: Founder of the swedish pirate party, watch his youtube channel. -Gabriel Cardona (Bitcoin cash developer) -Justin Bons : Founder & CIO of Cyber Capital -Dr. Mark B. Lundeberg: Developer researcher And there is a lot more, but those people are people that I personally trust for their work they shared and that I like following. Recently we had the Bitcoin cash city conference, another event full of people supporting BCH, that kind of thing doesn’t happen with other crypto. So many brilliant people supporting BCH, how could it be possible that all those guys are supporting a scam or a shitcoin. As well, there is often meetups and conferences all over the world. The developer community is not centralized, there is multiple teams (BitcoinABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, BCHD, Bcash, Bitcoin Verde…) independent of each other arguing sometimes about technical and political stuff, this ensure that developments and important decisions are not centralized. I find this very healthy. If a fork occurs, it’s not a problem, it will simply double your coin and allows two different ways of thinking to grow and compete. This won’t happen in Bitcoin (BTC) anymore, the way of thinking is centralized for BTC, they all share the same view: the segwit workaround + small block + layer 2 = (moon + lambo) in 18 months. Regarding CSW, I don’t believe in this guy for now but maybe I’m wrong, maybe this guy is wrongly understood but based on all the things I know about him, he seems too complicated to be someone honest. Honesty comes with simplicity. Finally, regarding Roger Ver: He is hated a lot and I still don't understand why, I feel sorry for him, I really tried my best to hate him like the crowd, but I couldn’t find any reasons. Many people are saying that he is lying and scamming people but none of them are technically able to explain why. It's really a crazy story and I understand why some people call him "Bitcoin Jesus". I personally think he is doing a great job and I thank him. 3. The current and future adoption BCH is used by reel people and reel shops (check the bitcoin cash map), there are transactions on the network to buy and sell real things that exist in the real world. Can you believe this? Maybe the only blockchain having that. Please let me know if you know another blockchain which is today serving the real world. The Bitcoin cash wallet app is easy and exciting to use. Same for the app for merchant. This can be used by my old mum! The BCH roadmap shows that more features will be added to simplify and enhance the user experience. I can’t find other blockchain having that level of user friendliness. Recently Roger Ver announced HTC mobile phone with a BCH wallet preinstalled. I read as well that Burger King is accepting BCH, but I haven’t verified if this was legit or not. 4. Existing features and roadmap -Multiple wallets built on all platform. -Bitcoin Cash point of sales: this app is the app that merchant should use to accept Bitcoin, as well very easy to use and takes 5min to install. -Cash shuffle with Cash fusion allowing to transact anonymously, making BCH competing with privacy focused coins such like Zcash, Monero, Dash. I heard this function will be implemented as well on mobile devices. -SLP token: The simplicity of creating a token and sending dividends make BCH a bit competing with all smart blockchain. Anyone can create a token, raise funds and send dividends easily and it works! Will Bitcoin Cash evolve to a smart economy? -memo.cash: A social network stored on the blockchain, fixing the problem of censorship we have on reddit for example. I recently discovered it, it’s awesome to know that you can write whatever you want, and nobody will be able to delete it and this forever. It’s really an awesome experience. I invite you to test it. For example, yesterday I had fun creating, sending token and being tipped in BCH or in any token by random people, it really shows the potential of BCH. I think I made around 50 on chain transactions in less than one hour with less than 10 cents. -Stable coins: We can build stable coin on BCH; this is something very important as well. Regarding the roadmap: It’s well described on bitcoincash.org and looks promising, but no update since the last 5 months. Not sure if it’s normal. 5. Security SHA256 based algorithm are I believe the most secure, I don’t think we need to add more regarding this. Maybe someone can help me to find some downside regarding security, often some people talk about the potential 51% attack that could occurs on BCH but I couldn’t manage to have my own opinion regarding this. Regarding the double spending attack because of the zero confirmation, I have asked many people to explain to me how this could potentially be a problem for a real merchant. I think that small and insignificant amount doesn’t need instant confirmation but if you sell a lambo then of course you should wait for at least 5 confirmations. To summarize I would even consider that zero conf is more advantageous than Lightning Network if you take everything into consideration. Worth case scenario if your restaurant is victim of a double spending attack a few times, you will just increase the confirmation level and prevent your customer from living your place. I think that it’s easier to print fake fiat money and try to pay with it rather than trying a double spending attack. But again, I might have misunderstood something or maybe there is more sophisticated exploits that I haven’t thought of. 6. Price 21 million coins, no inflation, the price currently around 300usd, a boiling community. The potential gains could be as good as BTC and even more. Maybe it’s the so waited coin that you will never convert back to that shit fiat. Certainly, one of the best coins to invest in now. 7. Electricity and efficiency Since the cost of electricity is the same whatever the size of the block, it means that BCH is more environment friendly than BTC for the same amount of transaction or we can say that it’s "wasting" less energy. Maybe if LN works one day this will change. My Conclusion: Bitcoin is technically the worst coin; all others existing coins are better technically. But Bitcoin survives because of the network effect, illustrated by its biggest hash rate, making BTC the most secure blockchain. As well because of promises made by the Lightning Network. Bitcoin is the gold of crypto currencies. Bitcoin like Gold have both almost no utility. In a traditional market, gold drop when economy goes well and goes up when investors need to find a refuge. BTC is the drop zone for fresh meat. Most of the BTC holders cannot think clearly regarding the BTC/BCH debate, they become completely irrational. This kind of behaviour leads to ruin, especially in trading/investment.With low fees, instant transaction, smart contracts, big community, user friendly apps, stable coin and a lot more to come, Bitcoin Cash has clearly a good future. I hope that someone will find my post useful. Cheers.
The goal is to have fast, cheap, non-censorable, peer-to-peer electronic money for the world. Decentralization just happens to be necessary for those to exist. Core claims they want decentralization but they disregard the goals in the process.
BitcoinCore claims that the LN helps keep Bitcoin decentralized. This is a lie. The LN throws out all of the reasons for having decentralization in the first place. The LN is not fast: To make an LN transaction you first need to on-board, lock up funds, make your transaction and then off-board. This entire process could take from hours to days. Further, an unacceptable percentage of LN transactions fail because they can't find the destination or funds aren’t available. This is hard or impossible to fix because the funding/transfer issues that Peter Rizun has talked extensively about. The LN is not cheap: The LN is a double-toll road: you pay a full on-chain transaction to get on it and then you pay a full on-chain transaction to get your actual BTC out. It takes two transactions to use the tab/iou system. Once you’re in that system you pay fees to middlemen who do nothing but act as an intermediary. Further, your money could be lost if those intermediaries don’t play by the rules. The LN is Censorable: The LN introduces middlemen who do nothing to secure the network. You have to pay them fees to move your funds while they can also potentially freeze your transactions. If you don't have enough funds to settle on-chain then you lose your money. The LN won't actually function properly without some sort of centralization run by companies and you can also be sure that they will be required to add KYC/AML if the LN becomes widely used. Privacy is about dignity for most people, not for doing bad things. The LN is not peer-to-peer: The LN requires you to trust that several intermediaries will just play along. You have to be online 24/7 or be forced to trust/use another service called a lighthouse in order to receive transactions. if you don't have enough liquidity, that’s another service you have to trust - and you can bet that bankers are looking for every way to steal your money just for making a transaction. Just ask yourself: is the LN better or different than the modern banking cartels? I think you'll find that the LN is a sad attempt to cripple Bitcoin's actual usage while hyping the price. This is exactly what big banks want, another asset class that doesn't disrupt their day to day scamming operations (modern banking). This is why Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. It matches the original Bitcoin Whitepaper and continues to work as peer-to-peer electronic cash. Bitcoin Cash can also scale 100x or more what BTC can, and it does it on-chain. Bitcoin Cash has better developers and all of the original Bitcoin developers are now in support of Bitcoin Cash. It's time for the flippening.
Miner donations will not be implemented. I will vote No in the hashrate vote.
Jiang Zhuoer, the founder of Leibite mining pool, said in a Weibo post. It was him who first proposed the plan, and it was also him who stood up and said that he would vote against it. The taste is only known to the BCH community who has been sawing for more than a month. Planned preform All this has to start from January 22. On this day, Jiang Zhuoer also published the article "Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP) for Bitcoin Cash" on Weibo and medium at the same time. In his opinion, the current BCH has a problem of developer operating funds, only A few companies donate to developers, and the other members are hitchhikers, which can be called a tragedy of the commons. In fact, it is not just BCH. Many early projects without 1CO lack a continuous source of funds. BTC and LTC also rely on the sustainable funding of companies and individuals to donate to developers. Regarding this, Jiang Zhuoer added at the subsequent AMA held by Reddit that a few companies continued to donate, and these companies' right to speak would increase, which might affect the development in the future, which is also a major hidden danger. So based on the consideration of stable development funds, he said that several major mining pools on BCH (BTC.TOP, Antpool, BTC.com, ViaBTC, Bitcoin.com) will implement a new donation plan that will reward BCH for block explosions. 12.5% was donated to a specially established fund to support BCH infrastructure, which aims to provide sufficient funds for BCH developers. Blocks that are unwilling to participate in this donation plan will be isolated. According to its disclosure, the donation will last 6 months and the estimated amount is about 6 million US dollars. A Hong Kong company has been set up to accept and distribute funds. At the end of the article, Jiang Zhuoer, Wu Jihan, Yang Haibo and Roger Ver were stated to be supporters of this plan. The response was extremely intense After the news came out, BCH communities at home and abroad had a heated discussion. There are mixed voices in China. Some people think that this is a great benefit to the BCH currency price. Some people think that this is a miner sacrificing part of their own interests to support infrastructure construction. It is a manifestation of the spirit of the community, but some people allege that this is a pumping behavior ... these are evident in the comments below Jiang Zhuo's blog post. The foreign community, which has gathered most of the BCH developers and core personnel, is even more dramatic. On January 23, the day after the BCH miner donation plan was issued, Amaury Séchet (@deadalnix), the chief developer of the ABC team of BCH, posted a post on read.cash , which is the platform for the donation plan. He said this plan It has been brewing for a long time. The operation of the team needs financial support, clarifying that this is not the so-called "compulsory miner tax". What's more notable is that he thinks that there is no problem as long as the endowment fund can be transparent, and even Mao has recommended himself that he and Jonald Fyookball, the chief developer of Electron Cash, a light wallet developed by BCH, are qualified to control the fund. Later, the Jonald Fyookball he mentioned also posted on read.cash , which also said that it would be beneficial to the team and miners. I have tried many measures on development funds before, but none of them worked. One will be a short six-month trial and will be upgraded in the next BCH agreement. However, the core people in the community took the lead to speak out in support of this, but it could not stop the tide of opposition afterwards. In order to fight for the miners' donation, the moderators of read.cash also created a special "Debate section"  for the community to express their opinions. On January 26, Peter Rizun, chief scientist of the Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) team, posted a post on it , explaining in detail the operation of funds in this scheme. (It is necessary to add here that the BCH network is composed of two major clients, ABC and BU, which together account for more than 95% of the 1,510 public nodes in the BCH network.) According to his article, the 12.5% block reward BCH tokens will be sent directly to the new company in Hong Kong, and the developer's operating funds will come from the funds obtained by the new company from selling these BCH tokens on the exchange. After the mining revenue decreases, the hash rate of the network will drop by about the same percentage. Since BCH accounts for about 3% of the SHA256 hash rate, and other conditions remain unchanged, the total income of SHA256 miners will fall by ~ 0.4%. The following figure graphically shows the flow of these donated tokens: In fact, the mining The merchant lost only a small part of its profits. The group of investors who ultimately bought the BCH tokens out of the Hong Kong company. In the text, Peter Rizun pointed out that this is simply the developer service tax of BCH, and corruption will arise. In addition, the Bitcoin protocol has been eleven years so far. At present, what BCH needs to do is how to make the protocol more stable. The role of developer should gradually fade away, and the continuous growth of users is the core. Peter Rizun even stated at the end of the article that the monopolistic miners are still trying to adopt such a plan, and the greed is obvious and disgusting, and the BU team will probably not accept this donation plan. On the same day, BCH developer Imaginary Username posted that he believes that the development team's funds can come directly from capital investment, sponsorship, shareholder contributions and voluntary payments by miners, rather than forcing miners to pay. c After this, a BCH crowdfunding plan named Flipstarter.cash was announced online , and proposed other fundraising schemes other than donations from miners, and emphasized that this would be a new proposal based on voluntary. In general, opponents of these donation programs acknowledge that developers need revenue and infrastructure needs to be maintained, but also said that if the final plan is passed, those who do not support this plan will be lonely and violate the blockchain. spirit. Whether the taxation in disguise causes corruption, whether it will be carried out for a long time, or whether it violates the spirit of blockchain decentralization is the focus of debate. Things are still fermenting. Subsequently, Bitcoin.com also began to counter water, thinking that there is no consensus on this plan at present, and the development team needs to be clear about their use of funds. Bitcoin.com will also adopt a more prudent attitude and will not risk the risk of chain forks To support this decision. Regenerate In the face of various oppositions, Jiang Zhuoer released a new donation plan on February 1 , stating that the issue of donation ratio is in fact questionable, and reiterated that this plan will be democratic and encourage miners to perform computing power. Vote for your opinion. This plan will only be implemented if more than two-thirds of the computing power vote in favor of the donation. On February 16, Jiang Zhuoer updated the donation plan again, which reduced the original 12.5% to 5%. However, the release of the new version did not solve the doubts in the community. In response, digital currency commentator WhalePanda tweeted that the miner's tax rate is very funny, and any block that is not donated will be blocked. This is actually a totalitarian totalitarian regime, accompanied by a 51% attack threat. On the same day on the 16th, Roger ver, the founder of the Bitcoin.com wallet, posted a YouTube video . He believed that the donation ratio was 12.5% or 5% a bit random, and said "probably because of communication problems". His donation plan supporters have his name, but in fact he and Bitcoin.com do not support the plan. In fact, aside from the question of donation ratio, it is worth considering whether this so-called hashrate voting has practical significance. According to data from BTC.com, the five mining pools of the four supporters mentioned by Jiang Zhuoer have a total BCH computing power of more than 51%, reaching 54.5%, occupying a considerable say, and it is difficult for other miners to have a real speech right. Despite the opposition of the plan, it was still proceeding methodically. On February 18, according to an official BitcoinABC tweet, the ABC team has added the code for the donation plan to the ABC version 0.21.0 client. At the same time, TobiasRuck and Antony Zegers of the ABC team, and the BCHD team have stated their support for the donation plan at this node. On the one hand, there is no consensus, and on the other hand, donations need to be opened. This self-talking attitude caused strong dissatisfaction in the community. On February 19th, Freetrader, one of the earliest developers in the BCH ecosystem, created a full node called BCH Node (BCHN) , This version will remove the donation plan, express protest, and then release the PGP signatures of the BCHN project supporters. The supporters gathered, including Alexander Levin Jr, CEO of Asicseer.com, Pokkst of Crescent Cash wallet, Tipbitcoin cash, bitcoincashj , Tubing host Collin Enstad and others. Fragmentation and unification To this point, the community split into two camps, led by the ABC team and Electron Cash wallet, BCHD, etc. to support the donation plan, and BU, BCHN, etc. formed an opposition. In fact, various disputes have already raised concerns from the domestic and foreign communities that BCH may fork again. Fragmentation, strife ... This softened Jiang Zhuoer's attitude in LongBit's online live broadcast, saying that at least basic community consensus must be reached before donations can begin. Subsequently, at the second meeting of the BCH developers, Séchet of the ABC team who initially stood up to support this plan also said loosely that there are currently differences, and miners will not ignore these opinions and go their own ways. If the community becomes better, Alternatives can also be implemented. The concessions of the Séchets became a sign of gradual strife in foreign communities. Regarding the end of the entire donation plan, it ended with a post by Jiang Zhuoer's Weibo. In the article "Talking about the differences and recent market trends of BTC, BCH, and BSV" on March 5, Jiang Zhuoer said that due to a lot of opposition from the community, especially from major BCH supporters like Roger, the donations of miners will not be implemented. . The dispute, which lasted more than a month, finally ended with the termination of the donation plan. In fact, the donation plan was updated many times, and the donation share easily changed without letting us see the basis for its formulation, as Roger ver said "somewhat randomly". And "voluntary and democratic" computing power voting, if someone finally voted No in the computing power vote can influence the result, which will also lead to thinking about computing power dictatorship.
This FAQ and information thread serves to inform both new and existing users about common Bitcoin topics that readers coming to this Bitcoin subreddit may have. This is a living and breathing document, which will change over time. If you have suggestions on how to change it, please comment below or message the mods. What is /btc? The /btc reddit community was originally created as a community to discuss bitcoin. It quickly gained momentum in August 2015 when the bitcoin block size debate heightened. On the legacy /bitcoin subreddit it was discovered that moderators were heavily censoring discussions that were not inline with their own opinions. Once realized, the subreddit subscribers began to openly question the censorship which led to thousands of redditors being banned from the /bitcoin subreddit. A large number of redditors switched to other subreddits such as /bitcoin_uncensored and /btc. For a run-down on the history of censorship, please read A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /bitcoin by John Blocke and /Bitcoin Censorship, Revisted by John Blocke. As yet another example, /bitcoin censored 5,683 posts and comments just in the month of September 2017 alone. This shows the sheer magnitude of censorship that is happening, which continues to this day. Read a synopsis of /bitcoin to get the full story and a complete understanding of why people are so upset with /bitcoin's censorship. Further reading can be found here and here with a giant collection of information regarding these topics. Why is censorship bad for Bitcoin? As demonstrated above, censorship has become prevalent in almost all of the major Bitcoin communication channels. The impacts of censorship in Bitcoin are very real. "Censorship can really hinder a society if it is bad enough. Because media is such a large part of people’s lives today and it is the source of basically all information, if the information is not being given in full or truthfully then the society is left uneducated [...] Censorship is probably the number one way to lower people’s right to freedom of speech." By censoring certain topics and specific words, people in these Bitcoin communication channels are literally being brain washed into thinking a certain way, molding the reader in a way that they desire; this has a lasting impact especially on users who are new to Bitcoin. Censoring in Bitcoin is the direct opposite of what the spirit of Bitcoin is, and should be condemned anytime it occurs. Also, it's important to think critically and independently, and have an open mind. Why do some groups attempt to discredit /btc? This subreddit has become a place to discuss everything Bitcoin-related and even other cryptocurrencies at times when the topics are relevant to the overall ecosystem. Since this subreddit is one of the few places on Reddit where users will not be censored for their opinions and people are allowed to speak freely, truth is often said here without the fear of reprisal from moderators in the form of bans and censorship. Because of this freedom, people and groups who don't want you to hear the truth with do almost anything they can to try to stop you from speaking the truth and try to manipulate readers here. You can see many cited examples of cases where special interest groups have gone out of their way to attack this subreddit and attempt to disrupt and discredit it. See the examples here. What is the goal of /btc? This subreddit is a diverse community dedicated to the success of bitcoin. /btc honors the spirit and nature of Bitcoin being a place for open and free discussion about Bitcoin without the interference of moderators. Subscribers at anytime can look at and review the public moderator logs. This subreddit does have rules as mandated by reddit that we must follow plus a couple of rules of our own. Make sure to read the /btc wiki for more information and resources about this subreddit which includes information such as the benefits of Bitcoin, how to get started with Bitcoin, and more. What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a digital currency, also called a virtual currency, which can be transacted for a low-cost nearly instantly from anywhere in the world. Bitcoin also powers the blockchain, which is a public immutable and decentralized global ledger. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever. There is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. As such, it is more resistant to wild inflation and corrupt banks. With Bitcoin, you can be your own bank. Read the Bitcoin whitepaper to further understand the schematics of how Bitcoin works. What is Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin Cash (ticker symbol: BCH) is an updated version of Bitcoin which solves the scaling problems that have been plaguing Bitcoin Core (ticker symbol: BTC) for years. Bitcoin (BCH) is just a continuation of the Bitcoin project that allows for bigger blocks which will give way to more growth and adoption. You can read more about Bitcoin on BitcoinCash.org or read What is Bitcoin Cash for additional details. How do I buy Bitcoin? You can buy Bitcoin on an exchange or with a brokerage. If you're looking to buy, you can buy Bitcoin with your credit card to get started quickly and safely. There are several others places to buy Bitcoin too; please check the sidebar under brokers, exchanges, and trading for other go-to service providers to begin buying and trading Bitcoin. Make sure to do your homework first before choosing an exchange to ensure you are choosing the right one for you. How do I store my Bitcoin securely? After the initial step of buying your first Bitcoin, you will need a Bitcoin wallet to secure your Bitcoin. Knowing which Bitcoin wallet to choose is the second most important step in becoming a Bitcoin user. Since you are investing funds into Bitcoin, choosing the right Bitcoin wallet for you is a critical step that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Use this guide to help you choose the right wallet for you. Check the sidebar under Bitcoin wallets to get started and find a wallet that you can store your Bitcoin in. Why is my transaction taking so long to process? Bitcoin transactions typically confirm in ~10 minutes. A confirmation means that the Bitcoin transaction has been verified by the network through the process known as mining. Once a transaction is confirmed, it cannot be reversed or double spent. Transactions are included in blocks. If you have sent out a Bitcoin transaction and it’s delayed, chances are the transaction fee you used wasn’t enough to out-compete others causing it to be backlogged. The transaction won’t confirm until it clears the backlog. This typically occurs when using the Bitcoin Core (BTC) blockchain due to poor central planning. If you are using Bitcoin (BCH), you shouldn't encounter these problems as the block limits have been raised to accommodate a massive amount of volume freeing up space and lowering transaction costs. Why does my transaction cost so much, I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be cheap? As described above, transaction fees have spiked on the Bitcoin Core (BTC) blockchain mainly due to a limit on transaction space. This has created what is called a fee market, which has primarily been a premature artificially induced price increase on transaction fees due to the limited amount of block space available (supply vs. demand). The original plan was for fees to help secure the network when the block reward decreased and eventually stopped, but the plan was not to reach that point until some time in the future, around the year 2140. This original plan was restored with Bitcoin (BCH) where fees are typically less than a single penny per transaction. What is the block size limit? The original Bitcoin client didn’t have a block size cap, however was limited to 32MB due to the Bitcoin protocol message size constraint. However, in July 2010 Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto introduced a temporary 1MB limit as an anti-DDoS measure. The temporary measure from Satoshi Nakamoto was made clear three months later when Satoshi said the block size limit can be increased again by phasing it in when it’s needed (when the demand arises). When introducing Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list in 2008, Satoshi said that scaling to Visa levels “would probably not seem like a big deal.” What is the block size debate all about anyways? The block size debate boils down to different sets of users who are trying to come to consensus on the best way to scale Bitcoin for growth and success. Scaling Bitcoin has actually been a topic of discussion since Bitcoin was first released in 2008; for example you can read how Satoshi Nakamoto was asked about scaling here and how he thought at the time it would be addressed. Fortunately Bitcoin has seen tremendous growth and by the year 2013, scaling Bitcoin had became a hot topic. For a run down on the history of scaling and how we got to where we are today, see the Block size limit debate history lesson post. What is a hard fork? A hard fork is when a block is broadcast under a new and different set of protocol rules which is accepted by nodes that have upgraded to support the new protocol. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain to two separate blockchains (a majority chain and a minority chain). What is a soft fork? A soft fork is when a block is broadcast under a new and different set of protocol rules, but the difference is that nodes don’t realize the rules have changed, and continue to accept blocks created by the newer nodes. Some argue that soft forks are bad because they trick old-unupdated nodes into believing transactions are valid, when they may not actually be valid. This can also be defined as coercion, as explained by Vitalik Buterin. Doesn't it hurt decentralization if we increase the block size? Some argue that by lifting the limit on transaction space, that the cost of validating transactions on individual nodes will increase to the point where people will not be able to run nodes individually, giving way to centralization. This is a false dilemma because at this time there is no proven metric to quantify decentralization; although it has been shown that the current level of decentralization will remain with or without a block size increase. It's a logical fallacy to believe that decentralization only exists when you have people all over the world running full nodes. The reality is that only people with the income to sustain running a full node (even at 1MB) will be doing it. So whether it's 1MB, 2MB, or 32MB, the costs of doing business is negligible for the people who can already do it. If the block size limit is removed, this will also allow for more users worldwide to use and transact introducing the likelihood of having more individual node operators. Decentralization is not a metric, it's a tool or direction. This is a good video describing the direction of how decentralization should look. Additionally, the effects of increasing the block capacity beyond 1MB has been studied with results showing that up to 4MB is safe and will not hurt decentralization (Cornell paper, PDF). Other papers also show that no block size limit is safe (Peter Rizun, PDF). Lastly, through an informal survey among all top Bitcoin miners, many agreed that a block size increase between 2-4MB is acceptable. What now? Bitcoin is a fluid ever changing system. If you want to keep up with Bitcoin, we suggest that you subscribe to /btc and stay in the loop here, as well as other places to get a healthy dose of perspective from different sources. Also, check the sidebar for additional resources. Have more questions? Submit a post and ask your peers for help!
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? An analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). Part 3
Part 1 Part 2 So I have been subbed to /bitcoin since it had less than two thousand subs but haven't posted there in years. I think I took a break from researching bitcoin to take a foray into the world of conspiracy around 2014 and only got back in to it around the beginning of 2017 but with a bit of sense of skepticism and cynicism about everything. I think I returned to /bitcoin around that time but there had been a rift that had emerged in the community between those that said that bitcoin was censoring any discussion around big blocks but then also just censorship in general. This lead to the formation of /btc which became the main spot for big blockers to gather to talk about protocol development. Following the fork of Bitcoin Cash and SegWit (BTC) in August 2017 the camps were further divided when the fence sitters were denied their SegWit2x compromise. Many from the fence sitters then deferred back to the incumbent bitcoin as citing muh network effect, liquidity, and hashpower while some who felt betrayed by the failure of getting S2X through went to support BCH for some attempt at on chain scaling rather than through pegged side chains or Lightning Network. Bitcoin cash initially went with a modest doubling of the blocksize to 2MB but implemented some other features like a new more rapidly adjusting difficulty algorithm to protect themselves against hashpower fluctuations from the majority chain. In about July of that year I had seen what I potentially thought was someone LARPing on /biz/ but screencapped, that segwit2x which was scheduled for november 2017 would be called off and then hashpower would switch to BCH causing congestion and chain death spiral on BTC and BCH would pump massively. I was partial to the idea as the game theory and incentives on a big block bitcoin should attract miners. About a month after SegWit2x was indeed called off while the BTC blockchain was hugely congested, BCH went through a violent pump reaching 0.5 BTC/BCH on a European exchange called Kraken while it also pumped ridiculously on American exchange coinbase. Shortly afterwards the market took a giant dump all over those people who bought the top and it has since retraced to roughly 30:1 or so now. After that pump though BCH kind of gained some bagholders I guess who started to learn the talking points presented by personalities like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet. Craig S Wright by this time had been outed as Satoshi but had in 2016 publicly failed to convince the public with the cryptographic proof he provided. To which he later published the article I don't have the courage to prove I am the bitcoin creator. In essence this allowed many to disregard anything he offered to the crypto community though his company nChain was very much interested in providing the technical support to scale what he saw as the true implementation of bitcoin. Following debate around a set of planned protocol upgrades between a bitcoin node implementation by his company nChain and the developers of another client Bitcoin ABC (adjustable block cap), the two parties both dug their heels in and wouldn't compromise. As it became clear that a fork was imminent there was a lot of vitriol tossed out towards Wright, another big billionaire backer Calvin Ayre and other personalities like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Craig's credibility was disregarded because of his failure to provide convincing cryptographic proof but still people who wanted to pursue the protocol upgrades that nChain were planning (as it best followed their interpretation of the bitcoin white paper) pursued his variant, while others who followed the socia consensus deferred to the positions of their personalities like Wu, Ver, and Sechet but even developers from Ethereum and other protocols chimed in to convince everyone that CSW is a fraud. This was referred to as the hash war and was the first time that the bitcoin protocol had been contentiously hard forked. Hashpower is the CPU cycles you can commit to the Proof of Work function in bitcoin and the majority will generate the longest chain as they have the most proof of work. To win the contentious hard fork legitimately and make sure your chain will always be safe going forward you need to maintain your version of the blockchain with 51% of the hashpower on the network and force the other parties to continue to spend money on building a blockchain that is never going to be inserted in to the majority chain. As well as this you need to convince exchanges that you have the majority chain and have them feel safe to accept deposits and withdrawals so that they don't lose money in the chaos. This is how it would play out if both parties acted according to the rules of bitcoin and the Nakamoto Consensus. There was a lot of shit talking between the two parties on social media with Craig Wright making a number of claims such as "you split, we bankrupt you" "I don't care if there is no ability to move coins to an exchange for a year" and other such warnings not to engage in foul play.. To explain this aftermath is quite tedious so It might be better to defer to this video for the in depth analysis but basically Roger Ver had to rent hashpower that was supposed to be mining BTC from his mining farm bitcoin.com, Jihan Wu did the same from his Bitmain Mining Farm which was a violation of his fiduciary duty as the CEO of a company preparing for an IPO. In this video of a livestream during the hashwar where Andreas Brekken admits to basically colluding with exchange owners like Coinbase, Kraken (exchange Roger Ver invested in), Bitfinex and others to release a patched ABC client to the exchanges and introducing "checkpoints" in to the BCH blockchain (which he even says is arguably "centralisation") in order to prevent deep reorgs of the BCH blockchain. >"We knew we were going to win in 30 mins we had the victory because of these checkpoints that we released to a cartel of friendly businesses in a patch so then we just sat around drinking beers all day". By releasing a patched client that has code in it to prevent deep reorgs by having the client refer to a checkpoint from a block mined by someone who supported BCHABC if another group of hash power was to try to insert a new chain history, this cartel of exchanges and mining farm operators conspired in private to change the nature of the bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto Consensus. Since the fork there have been a number of other BCH clients that have come up that require funding and have their own ideas about what things to implement on the BCH chain. What began to emerge was actually not necessarily an intention of scaling bitcoin but rather to implement Schnorr signatures to obfuscate transactions and to date the ABC client still has a default blocksize of 2MB but advertised as 16MB. What this demonstrates for BCH is that through the collusion, the cartel can immediately get a favourable outcome from the developers to keep their businesses secure and from the personalities/developers to work on obfuscating records of transactions on the chain rather than scaling their protocol. After the SegWit fork, many from the BCH camp alleged that through the funding to Blockstream from AXA and groups that tied to the Bilderbergs, Blockstream would be beholden to the legacy banking and would be a spoke and hub centralised model, so naturally many of the "down with central banks anarcho capitalist types" had gathered in the BCH community. Through these sympathies it seems that people have been susceptible to being sold things like coin mixing and obfuscation with developers offering their opinions about how money needs to be anonymous to stop the evil government and central banks despite ideas like Mises’ Regression Theorem, which claims that in order for something to be money in the most proper sense, it must be traceable to an originally non-monetary barter commodity such as gold. What this suggests is that there is an underlying intent from the people that have mechanisms to exert their will upon the protocol of bitcoin and that if obfuscation is their first priority rather than working on creating a scalable platform, this demonstrates that they don't wish to actually be global money but more so something that makes it easier to move money that you don't want seen. Roger Ver has often expressed sentiments of injustice about the treatment of Silk Road found Ross Ulbricht and donated a large amount of money to a fund for his defence. I initially got in to bitcoin seeking out the Silk Road and though I only wanted to test it to buy small quantities of mdma, lsd, and mescaline back in 2011 there was all sorts of criminal activity on there like scam manuals, counterfeits, ID, Credit Card info, and other darknet markets like armoury were selling pretty crazy weapons. It has been alleged by Craig Wright that in his capacity as a digital forensics expert he was involved with tracing bitcoin that was used to fund the trafficking of 12-16 year olds on the silk road. There have been attempts at debunking such claims by saying that silk road was moderated for such stuff by Ulbricht and others, but one only has to take a look in to the premise of pizza gate to understand that there it may be possible to hide in plain site with certain code words for utilising the market services and escrow of websites like the silk road. The recent pedo bust from South Korea demonstrates the importance of being able to track bitcoin transactions and if the first thing BCH wanted to do after separating itself from Satoshi's Vision and running on developer and cartel agendas was to implement obfuscation methods, this type of criminal activity will only proliferate. Questions one must ask oneself then are things like why do they want this first? Are some of these developers, personalities and cartel businesses sitting on coins that they know are tarnished from the silk road and want to implement obfuscation practices so they can actually cash in some of the value they are unable to access? Merchants from the silk road 1 are still being caught even as recently as this year when they attempted to move coins that were known to have moved through the silk road. Chain analytics are only becoming more and more powerful and the records can never be changed under the original bitcoin protocol but with developer induced protocol changes like Schnorr signatures, and coinjoin it may be possible to start laundering these coins out in to circulation. I must admit with the cynicism I had towards government and law enforcement and my enjoying controlled substances occasionally I was sympathetic to Ross and donated to his legal fund back in the day and for many years claimed that I wouldn't pay my taxes when I wanted to cash out of bitcoin. I think many people in the space possess this same kind of mentality and subsequently can be preyed upon by people who wish to do much more in the obfuscation than dodge tax and party. Another interesting observation is that despite the fact that btc spun off as a result of censorship around big block scaling on bitcoin, that subreddit itself has engaged in plenty of censorship for basically anyone who wants to discuss the ideas presented by Dr Craig Wright on that sub. When I posted my part 2 of this series in there a week ago I was immediately met with intense negativity and ad hominems so as to discourage others from reading the submission and my post history was immediately throttled to 1 comment every 10 mins. This is not quite as bad as cryptocurrency where my post made it through the new queue to gather some upvotes and a discussion started but I was immediately banned from that sub for 7 days for reason "Content standards - you're making accusations based on no evidence just a dump of links that do nothing to justify your claims except maybe trustnodes link (which has posted fabricated information about this subreddit mods) and a Reddit post. Keep the conspiracy theories in /conspiracy" My post was also kept at zero in bitcoin and conspiracy so technically btc was the least censored besides C_S_T. In addition to the throttling I was also flagged by the u/BsvAlertBot which says whether or not a user has a questionable amount of activity in BSV subreddits and then a break down of your percentages. This was done in response to combat the "toxic trolls" of BSV but within bitcoincashSV there are many users that have migrated from what was originally supposed to be a uncensored subreddit to discuss bitcoin and many such as u/cryptacritic17 has have switched sides after having been made to essentially DOXX themselves in btc to prove that they aren't a toxic troll for raising criticisms of the way certain things are handled within that coin and development groups. Other prominent users such as u/jim-btc have been banned for impersonating another user which was in actual fact himself and he has uploaded evidence of him being in control of said account to the blockchain. Mod Log, Mod Damage Control, Mod Narrative BTFO. Interestingly in the comments on the picture uploaded to the blockchain you can see the spin to call him an SV shill when in actual fact he is just an OG bitcoiner that wanted bitcoin to scale as per the whitepaper. What is essentially going on in the Bitcoin space is that there is a battle of the protocols and a battle for social consensus. The incumbent BTC has majority of the attention and awareness as it is being backed by legacy banking and finance with In-Q-Tel and AXA funding blockstream as well as Epstein associates and MIT, but in the power vaccum that presented itself as to who would steward the big block variant, a posse of cryptoanarchists have gained control of the social media forums and attempted to exert their will upon what should essentially be a Set In Stone Protocol to create something that facilitates their economic activity (such as selling explosives online)) while attempting to leverage their position as moderators who control the social forum to spin their actions as something different (note memorydealers is Roger Ver). For all his tears for the children killed in wars, it seems that what cryptoanarchists such as u/memorydealers want is to delist/shut down governments and they will go to any efforts such as censorship to make sure that it is their implementation of bitcoin that will do that. Are we really going to have a better world with people easier able to hide transactions/launder money? Because of this power vacuum there also exists a number of different development groups but what is emerging now is that they are struggling for money to fund their development. The main engineering is done by self professed benevolent dictator Amaury Sechet (deadalnix) who in leaked telegram screen caps appears to be losing it as funding for development has dried up and money raised in an anarchist fashion wasn't compliant with laws around fundraising sources and FVNI (development society that manages BCH development and these donations) is run by known scammer David R Allen. David was founder of 2014 Israeli ICO Getgems (GEMZ) that scammed investors out of more than 2500 Bitcoins. The SV supported sky-lark who released this information has since deleted all their accounts but other users have claimed that sky-lark was sent personal details about themselves and pictures of their loved ones and subsequently deleted all their social media accounts afterwards. There are other shifty behaviours like hiring Japanese influencers to shill their coin, recruiting a Hayden Otto that up until 2018 was shilling Pascal Coin to become a major ambassador for BCH in the Australian city of Townsville. Townsville was claimed to be BCH city hosting a BCH conference there and claiming loads of adoption, but at the conference itself their idea of demonstrating adoption was handing a Point of Sale device to the bar to accept bitcoin payments but Otto actually just putting his credit card behind the bar to settle and he would keep the BCH that everyone paid. In the lead up to the conference the second top moderator of btc was added to the moderators of townsville to shill their coin but has ended up with the townsville subreddit wanting to ban all bitcoin talk from the subreddit. Many of the BCH developers are now infighting as funding dries up and they find themselves floundering with no vision of how to achieve scale or get actual real world adoption. Amaury has recently accused Peter Rizun of propagandising, told multiple users in the telegram to fuck off and from all accounts appears to be a malignant narcissist incapable of maintaining any kind of healthy relationship with people he is supposed to be working with. Peter Rizun has begun lurking in bitcoincashSV and recognising some of the ideas coming from BSV as having merit while Roger has started to distance himself from the creation of BCH. Interestingly at a point early in the BCH history Roger believed Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi, but once CSW wouldn't go along with their planned road map and revealed the fact he had patents on blockchain technology and wanted to go down a path that worked with Law, Roger retracted that statement and said he was tricked by Craig. He joined in on the faketoshi campaign and has been attempted to be sued by Dr Wright for libel in the UK to which Roger refused to engage citing grounds of jurisdiction. Ironically this avoidance of Roger to meet Dr Wright in court to defend his claims can be seen as the very argument against justice being served by private courts under an anarchocapitalist paradigm with essentially someone with resources simply being able to either flee a private court's jurisdiction or engage a team of lawyers that can bury any chances of an everyday person being able to get justice. There is much more going on with the BCH drama that can be explained in a single post but it is clear that some of the major personalities in the project are very much interested in having their ideals projected on to the technical implementation of the bitcoin protocol and have no qualms spouting rhetoric around the anti-censorship qualities of bitcoin/BCH while at the same time employing significant censorship on their social media forums to control what people are exposed to and getting rid of anyone who challenges their vision. I posit that were this coin to become a success, these "benevolent dictators" as they put it would love their new found positions of wealth/dominance yet if their behaviour to get there is anything to go by, would demonstrate the same power tripping practices of censorship, weasel acts, misleading people about adoption statistics and curating of the narrative. When the hashrate from Rogers bitcoin.com minging operation on BCH dropped dramatically and a lot of empty blocks were being mined, his employer and 2IC moderator u/BitcoinXio (who stepped in to replace roger as CEO) was in the sub informing everyone it was simply variance that was the reason when only a few days later it was revealed that they had reduced their hash power significantly. This is not appropriate behaviour for one of the primary enterprises engaged in stewarding BCH and encouraging adoption nor is the inability to be accountable for such dishonest practices as well. It seems bitcoin.com treats btc as their own personal spam page where Roger can ask for donations despite it being against the sub rules and spin/ban any challenge to the narrative they seek to create. Let's see how the censorship goes as I post this around a few of the same places as the last piece. Stay tuned for the next write up where I take a deep dive in to the coin that everyone doesn't want you to know about.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
The Bitcoin Cash Fund website is now live! Go check it out!
THE BITCOIN CASH FUND
Firstly, we need to say a big thank you to you all for getting us this far. There is so much energy in the community right now. You guys are seriously awesome! You are by far the biggest asset to Bitcoin Cash, and this is what we need to leverage to take it mainstream.
Go and check it out! Sign up to our subscriber list to get updates on the projects that we are funding. The projects we are funding always need volunteers to help them expand their reach.
We would like to announce our board, advisors and generous sponsors. BOARD
Paul Wasensteiner (aka Singularity). I have been a Bitcoiner (now Casher) since mid-2011 when I discovered Bitcoin shortly after the first $30 price bubble. Since then, I have been highly active in the community, although it wasn't until this year that I dove into Bitcoin full time. I started the BTCforks initiative last year with Freetrader, which was a precursor to the Bitcoin Cash initiative. Until recently, I spent my time in the community trying to correct misinformation and educate newcomers. After Bitcoin Cash successfully launched, I decided to make a positive change and instead put my energy into pushing Bitcoin Cash forward. I have a wide range of experience and expertise, and have had two businesses of my own in the past. I am working towards changing the world for the better, and I feel Bitcoin Cash is one way of achieving this. I launched the Bitcoin Cash Fund initiative on 14th, November 2017 to expand Bitcoin Cash adoption.
Ian Descôteaux (aka checksum0/FractalGlitch). Ian found out about bitcoin on January 3rd, 2010 after reading a piece on it. He spent time CPU and GPU mining, both solo and with Mining Team Reddit and Slush. After a break from Bitcoin, he reinvested in mining when the Bitmain S1 was released, and has kept this endeavor going ever since. It was at this time that fees started to increase and he realised that this may become an issue in the future. Today he owns and operates a private 4 MW mining facility in North America. Bitcoin Cash is the plan he signed up for when he first got into the bitcoin space.
Haipo Yang Haipo is the CEO and founder of ViaBTC. He graduated from Northwestern Polytechnical University of China in 2012, majored in mathematics. After graduation he worked as a developer at Tencent Weibo (China’s Twitter) and then FUTU, a Tencent-invested Hong Kong stock exchange. YANG is one of the earliest adopters and investors of Bitcoin and has in-depth understanding in blockchain technology. YANG began to be involved in Bitcoin in 2013. Between 2014 and 2015, YANG started his career in cryptocurrency industry and led the R&D team at ZeusMiner, the former TOP3 Scrypt miner in the world. In April 2016, YANG committed himself to the development of ViaBTC Bitcoin pool and released the initial version after two months of extensive coding effort.
Roger Ver Roger was an early investor in bitcoin related startups. He has been a prominent supporter of bitcoin adoption and saw bitcoin as a means to promote economic freedom. He now promotes Bitcoin Cash, a different cryptocurrency. He identifies as a libertarian, an anarcho-capitalist, peace advocate and advocates for individualism and voluntaryism.
Jack Liu Jack C. Liu formerly served as Chief Strategy Officer of OKCoin Group, leading the company's international unit, and co-founding its latest products including OKEx and OKLink.
Peter Rizun Dr. Peter Rizun is a physicist and entrepreneur. Chief Scientist for Bitcoin Unlimited, an organization which provides software that powers the backbone of the Bitcoin network. His research focuses on understanding and overcoming the bottlenecks preventing Bitcoin from scaling to a global peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
Mike Komaransky Mike has been an investor and advocate of Bitcoin since 2010. Mike was a partner at the trading firm DRW, and was Head of Trading at Cumberland Mining from 2014 until June 2017.
SPONSORS Bitcoin.com Bitcoin.com is a premier source for everything Bitcoin related. They can help you buy bitcoins, choose a bitcoin wallet. You can also read the latest news, or engage with the community on their Bitcoin Forum.
ViaBTC ViaBTC was founded in May 2016 as an innovation-intensive startup dedicated to cryptocurrency. They’ve developed the world’s top Bitcoin mining pool with the most advanced deployment technology. They’ve also released mining pools for competing coins and cloud mining products.
Yours The mission at Yours is to improve the quality of content on the internet by getting people paid for creating and discovering good content. They're making everyone in the world an entrepreneur on their smartphone. They believe peer-to-peer payments are the missing piece in social media
PROJECTS There are already a number of projects underway.
A short animated video explaining Bitcoin Cash.
A short live-action video explaining how a user uses BCH and, how a business uses/accepts BCH.
Project to travel around Seatac in the US with POS systems, information packs, and stickers to onboard new businesses.
Create payment sound branding to be applied as an industry standard for maximum impact.
Hand out well designed, fun Bitcoin Cash stickers for students to stick on their laptops and lockers etc.
Put up Bitcoin Cash flyers on all message boards at MIT.
Giving out free stickers on Twitter for tweets about Bitcoin Cash.
We need far far more though! Get in contact with us (Contact form on our website) and submit a proposal. Start organising! Put ideas out into the community and find people with the skills you need to execute! We are here to help you do this! Join our slack. Subscribe to bitcoincashmarketing and start developing projects.
There are so many talented people in the Bitcoin Cash community. You are our biggest asset BY FAR! This is why the Bitcoin Cash Fund is going to be so powerful at driving Bitcoin Cash adoption, because every BCH we push into the community, we know we will get 10 BCH of value, because you guys are amazing!
Our mission is to help Bitcoin Cash serve 1 billion users within 5 years, and we know you are going to help us achieve this.
Thank you again to you all. The Bitcoin Cash Fund.
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:
Core/Blockstream accepted $76 million in "fantasy fiat" from the "legacy ledger" of central bankers via their buddies at AXA.
And Core/Blockstream accepted censorship on the sad subreddit of r\bitcoin.
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:
Yet-another centrally-planned 1.7MB maybe-someday blocksize - combined with some random arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" that nobody asked for,
Fixes for low-priority non-problems like malleability and quadratic hashing,
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:
At any moment now, at the Schelling point of our own choosing, more hashpower can also "dump Core" and start using Bitcoin Unlimited - which is why everyone involved with Core/Blockstream is now shitting in their pants.
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/ForkiusMaximusrecently 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.
People are naively following bitcoin core developers opinions because they are "technical" experts without realizing that their main opinions are economic ones where they have no expertise whatsoever.
There will be no fee market with larger blocks because miners will fill their blocks completely with all the transactions so core has to centrally plan the blocksize if and when core desires. Peter Rizun has been trying to prove this false by showing that even in a hypothetical situation without blocksize there are still "costs" to including more transactions in blocks. Bitcoin unlimited doesn't remove the limit. It just makes a hard fork upgrade go smoother because nodes will not be kicked off the network. (BU nodes). Nodes will decrease with a higher blocksize. This opinion is shared by many bitcoin core developers especially the ones that consider the proportion of nodes as decentralization. Believe it or not this is an economic opinion. They believe that higher node costs in the form of bandwidth, storage, and synching will lower node count without also considering that an increased userbase can increase node count. They cite distorted statistics of historical nodecount as proof they are right despite that in the past many wallets such as the bitcoin core client required a full node so it artificially rose demand. According to Peter Wuille blocks should fill and transaction fees should rise greatly so that "people don't get used to low fees". Rather than concentrate on the growing phase of bitcoin they would rather kick users off before it grows so they don't expect that they can continue to use bitcoin for low fees. With the above misguided beliefs, developers are helping to lead us down a path that is very risky for every large investor of bitcoin. The amount that transaction fees have risen in just a couple of months is scary. Transaction fees seem to be connected to the price (when the price goes up transaction fees also do because of related factors such as orphaning risk, wallet fee calculations not to mention more users). This means if we do get another price bubble again it won't take china to pop it. It will take a payment network that is so unusable that there will probably be serious outrage except it might be censored. That outrage might manifest itself into some alt coin.
A perspective from the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited developer who discovered CVE-2018–17144. That is about the time that Matt Corallo wanted to shave off of block validation with his pull request in 2016 to Bitcoin Core. 600µs is a lot less than what is saved with more efficient block propagation, like XThin, Compact Blocks, or now Graphene over typical links, especially those that are of similar low-end quality in network speed like Raspberry Pis are in compute speed. An optimization that was not in the focus by Core until XThin from Bitcoin Unlimited came onto the scene and kicked the Core team into gear on this issue. Furthermore, 600 microseconds is an order of magnitude or more below the variance between node validation speeds from a Raspberry Pi to a more high-end miner node and thus wholly in the range that the network already deals with. This 600 microsecond optimization now resulted in CVE-2018–17144. Certainly the most catastrophic bug in recent years, and certainly one of the most catastrophic bugs in Bitcoin ever. This bug was initially suspected to potentially cause inflation, was reported because it led to reliable crashes and confirmed by closer analysis… to be actually allowing inflation! I have consistently and repeatedly criticized hubris and arrogance in the most prominent Core developers, and done so since 2013, when the bullshitting around the 1MB block size limit started. Here we have an optimization that talks about avoiding “duplicate” validation like validation is nothing to worry about, an afterthought in Bitcoin almost. And a change that is quickly found to be good in peer reviewed, ACKed in Core-speak, in a rubber-stamp-like manner by Core developers such as Gregory Maxwell. Developers which I fully respect for their intelligence and knowledge by the way, but still, well, dislike as much for their overblown egos and underhanded discussion style as well as having done all they can to handicap Bitcoin with the 1MB limit. I also have to be honest, this change creates an unavoidable element of suspicion in me. For anyone who knows what went down and what the code paths do, it is just unavoidable to have this thought here. I like to qualify that this is not what I assert nor think is happening, but definitely crosses my mind as a potentiality! Because what is better to destroy the value of Bitcoin in the public’s eye than a silent inflation bug? What is better than creating code paths that look harmless for themselves but combined with some other, seemingly harmless rework in other areas of the code, result in utter catastrophe? And it looks like CVE-2018–17144 would eventually have become exactly this. The only thing that saved Core is their effective client diversity between revisions and someone actually noticing that there is a problem. After two years of this bug sitting around idle and exploitable. Client diversity that has been much criticized on the Bitcoin Cash side of things, but it obviously shows its advantages now. Reading the title of the original PR: “Remove duplicatable duplicate-input check from CheckTransaction” , as well as the message therein: “Benchmark results indicate this saves about 0.5–0.7ms during CheckBlock.” almost reads like it could be a sick joke being played on us all now. I always feared that someone from the bankster circles, someone injected into the Bitcoin development circles with the sole goal of wreaking unsalvageable havoc, would do exactly what happened. Injecting a silent inflation bug. Because that is what would destroy one of the very core advantages that Bitcoin has over the current status quo. That of transparency and a verifiable money supply. And, even though as a Bitcoin/BCHer, I do not see true long term prospects in Bitcoin/BTC anymore, calling the whole foundation of crypto into question just like that would have been equally disastrous to “our” variant of Bitcoin. Now, again, I am definitely not saying this is the case with PR 9049 for sure. I actually think the explanation of a young, cocky Core developer, a new “master of the universe” wreaking havoc by sheer arrogance and hubris, is the more likely explanation. People in general, but I don’t even exclude myself here, tend to believe in the competence of others if they appear just self-assured enough. This is part of the problem with attitude and psychological dynamics in this space. It creates a dangerous aura of ‘these guys know what they are doing’. I myself have done some minor work on sensitive areas in the Bitcoin Unlimited implementation. And I am working on some more “consensus critical” code for BCH now (see below). And, yes, I sometimes do lose some sleep over what could go wrong. I know I make mistakes. I have done so. I will. We all do. But I have yet to see anything resembling an admission of being imperfect by the developer in question, or any other prominent Core developer for that matter. The folks in question know exactly who I mean. There must be more reasonable folks in Core, but they are rather silent. Much worse even: In the discussion on github that follows this PR, user freetrader (a well known anonymous but still respected member of the Bitcoin Cash community who helped to create the Bitcoin Cash initial fork) asks the very valid question: Which is answered in the, all-too-typical for Core, smug manner by Matt Corallo, notably the original author of the bug who has all reason to be a bit more careful and respectful: The bug was disclosed in an absolutely responsible manner. As even the full disclosure on bitcoincore.org’s own pages notices, it went to a set of trustworthy people by the person who found the bug and did so in an encrypted PGP message only. This leaves the question why Core recklessly endangered the security of Bitcoin Cash as well endangering the myriad of altcoins that are out there and still susceptible with this premature and hasty publication. The back references from altcoins merging the change trickling into PR #14247 are a glimpse into this process. Now, Matt talks about “running out of time” in the above reply. But what time is that exactly? If you think hard about this, this can only be a distrust in any of the informed parties that they’ll leak this secret prematurely and thus catch Bitcoin Core with their pants down, or as a worse assumption, be actually exploited by one of the informed parties against BTC. Bitcoin Unlimited was ferociously attacked, presumably by deranged BTC supporters from the wider ‘community’, when it had a bug. And it seems a bit like Core members assumed a payback by deranged BCH supporters in kind here (I am not doubting those supporters exist), given the hints in the original disclosure that this bug has actually been discovered by someone aligned with the Bitcoin Cash side of things. But not only that, Core seems to have assumed that members on the BCH side of things who have been informed are deranged or at least irresponsible enough to leak this info to the wrong parties! I like to applaud deadalnix and the ABC team for what I was thinking the Core team should have done here as well: Bury the fix in a bit more and unrelated refactoring code so as to fix it but also to buy some more time for an upgrade. Maybe Core wasn’t creative enough to see a way to hide the problem, but then they also had no reason to blare it out like they did here. This was very irresponsible, and, and this should reach any altcoin impacted by this, this is definitely solely Bitcoin Core’s responsibility. No one else said anything in public before Core published their PR. It should also be noted by the Core team that this creates a strong disincentive to keep them in the loop with initial disclosure for anyone finding a bug. Cory Fields has talked about the risks and dangers with regards to sitting on the knowledge of a 0-day on Bitcoin Cash, and this bug discussed herein is one that was worth at least 10x more in potential damage and thus also shorting value and angry deranged people (a.k.a. “31337 crypto trading bros”) capable of violence. If a party behaves this irresponsibly, it shouldn’t be surprised if it degrades itself to a lower position in the food chain with regards to vulnerability disclosures. I am not saying I won’t inform next time I might stumble upon something, but this is not a good way to create the necessary trust. The Discovery and Disclosure Sitting in my little van by the sea on Monday, I was working on getting the new CHECKDATASIG/-VERIFY opcodes that are about to activate for Bitcoin (Cash) in November implemented on the Bitcoin Unlimited client. I have been looking at a potentially neat use case for those and am motivated to get this done. Around noon, I noticed that there is a lot of divergence in the way that signature operations counting was done in ABC vs. how it was done in Bitcoin Unlimited (BU). I agreed earlier with the BU team that I would go and port most of the CDS/-V stuff over from ABC, but I felt overwhelmed. My thoughts were that: Ok, this is doable, but this needs a lot more analysis and also many more eyeballs for review. And will take a lot longer. Sigh. While doing so, I stumbled upon this comment in the ABC code base: Check for duplicate inputs — note that this check is slow so we skip it in CheckBlock My initial reaction was a slight “Eh, WTF is going on with that comment?”. And then I looked up uses of CheckRegularTransaction in ABC, which is the renamed variant of CheckTransaction in Core (but I didn’t know at that time). I dug through the code to try to understand the logic. I noticed that block validation skips this test as it is assumed to have already happen during mempool ingress. My next thought was a bit of a sinking feeling and a “Uh-oh, I really hope the folks from ABC have thought about the difference between the mempool and block transmission and that those are distinct ways into the system. There might be a problem here!”. And then I went and thought about a way to test this. I patched an ABC node to not relay transactions even when asked and connected one unpatched and one patched node together in -regtest mode and created a transaction with a duplicate input (which the above test was skipping). Wham! assert(), Aborted. Next thought was along the lines: “Oh fuck, this doesn’t look good, gotta notify deadalnix and the crew what is lurking in ABC, this doesn’t look good at all. [email protected]#%!!”. Being aware of the danger that this could maybe be further exploited towards an actual inflation and chain-splitting bug (but I didn’t further check the specifics of this, as a node crash bug with assert() failure was already enough to be worried about), I quickly and somewhat inaccurately noted to myself (and timestamped): BitcoinABC does not check for duplicate inputs when processing a block, only when inserting a transaction into the mempool. This is dangerous as blocks can be generated with duplicate transactions and then sent through e.g. compact block missing transactions and avoid hitting the mempool, creating money out of thin air. awemany [Footnote: I timestamped this message in the BU slack, adding an innocuous situational lie of ‘Ooops, wrong channel’ to it. I also tried timestamping my findings on on my usual go-to site originstamp.org but they only submit timestamps every 24h due to the fees on Bitcoin being too high to do more often… I guess I should maybe get into the habit of doing timestamping transactions myself..] Opening up a disclosure email to deadalnix, I started to have a thought of: “Ok, actually, where is this stuff coming from, when and where did they introduce it into the code, might we be lucky and this is not in a release yet?” And then I noticed that this stuff was coming from Core. Already having written a disclosure report, I rechecked whether Core was vulnerable as well. And, once again: Wham! assert(), Aborted. I started to get shivers up my spine. Uh oh! Core has a crash bug, potentially worse. Stuff in the code since 2016. NOT good. NOT good at all. I like to say here that I actually had a feeling of this is bad, not this is good because of Core vs. Cash or something like that. I (unfortunately) still own a (for my poor soul significant) amount of BTC and for that reason and others do not like having bugs in Core either. Being a responsible citizen in this space, I then wrote the encrypted disclosure email to Wladimir, sickpig and some others, attaching a variant of the ABC and the Core patch to exploit this problem to my disclosure. I also put in a BCH address for a bounty payment to myself into that email (disclosed as proof below), as I feel this should be something worth a little performance bonus 🙂 No money has been received at the time of this writing yet. If you want to change this, you can send me BCH here: bitcoincash:qr5yuq3q40u7mxwqz6xvamkfj8tg45wyus7fhqzug5 (1NBKDco2EctDXvBv6r4hqJRPWfgX9jFpqs) I chose the handle beardnboobies as this is the first thing that came into my mind when I thought about this very discovery here. I thought: Ok, I am slowly becoming a pale nerd working on just code, with beard and manboobies. Oh well. I have noticed that this handle was — for whatever reason- taken out of the release notes that are checked into the main development branch of Bitcoin Core and is only available in the release branch / tag, being replaced with anonymous contributor on the main branch. I wonder: Do you Core guys feel this is too unprofessional to have this pseudonym appear in the main branch? Have some humor please! 🙂 By the way, a plea: I urge everyone in BCH as well as BTC (as well as impacted altcoins), to take a fine-toothed comb through the code with the goal of looking for similar issues! More specifically, I faintly remember (though might be wrong) from discussions back with Core devs on reddit in 2016 and before, that the idea that there’s a lot of “duplicate validation” between mempool and block validation was kind of en vogue back then. Potentially more code is vulnerable because it assumes that mempool validation can stand in for block validation. I suspect more, though maybe not as grave bugs, in this area. Reactions After I submitted it, I felt relief and then I started to watch the space from the back. A weird situation. Only then I also fully realized what Core contributor Cory Fields described with a bit of a different angle and on a smaller scale, the weirdness of having found a bug that you know is worth millions at least, massively impacting a $100 billion currency. The fact that I could have gone and rented hash power and shorted BTC and exploited this. But also the fact that I did not! Wladimir eventually wrote me an email that they’re preparing releases (and at that time or around it they published the PR), so I responded expressing my astonishment of the quite public handling of this serious issue. What I was amazed by in general was the long time it took for the bug to blow up to its full proportions, with the process seemingly even not over now. One thing is certainly others digging into this and realizing the full severity of this — as it turns out, yes it CAN be used to double-spend and inflate on BTC after all! — but also the time it takes from the initial PR being public, seemingly not noticed at all and the first media article being written. And then I noticed the usual spin. The “stupid BCashers can’t code and are irresponsible and what not” angle that is all too often repeated then by seemingly cerebrally insufficient Core supporters. I quote the below to gloat maybe. But also to show the world WHAT kind of bullshit the Bitcoin Cash side of things is facing here in a constant barrage. This is just from a few of the more prominent Core supporters and devs. There is, of course, a lot more folks foaming “btrash, bcash” at the mouth on reddit and twitter. Tone Vays and Jimmy Song Here we have Tone Vays, who likes to pose with the undercurrent of violence by wielding weapons on Twitter and apparently also on Youtube, discussing this bug with Jimmy Song in an unwillingly hilarious Youtube video: Luke-Jr I like to say some words about this tweet of Luke-Jr, committing the sin of bearing false witness about us irresponsible “BCashers”… I suspect Luke-Jr has been left in the dark about the background of this disclosure as well, not belonging to the innermost circles either. Careful observers might have noticed even more of this dynamic happening with other people. And note again: I have done everything that is necessary to make this a responsible disclosure. The initial, unobfuscated public disclosure happened by Bitcoin Core on their github! This is exactly the opposite situation compared to what Luke-Jr is describing. This is despicable. From:Luke-Jr Closing remarks Apart from pointing out the insane spin of some Core supporters in the preceding part, I simply want to take the opportunity now to urge caution for everyone here. Bugs lurk everywhere. Everyone is imperfect. Myself included, of course. I started to like Jihan Wu’s credo of “Don’t play hatred, don’t wish competing coins ill. Just wish and try to make BCH better” (from twitter) and see BCH and BTC in fierce but still civil competition. Civil competition obviously meaning no violence, including no violence like attacking each other’s nodes. I like to reiterate that, despite the gloating and strong words you might find in this article, I did everything to play fair. I also agree in general with Cory Fields from Core that it is not very easy to find the necessary disclosure addresses and information. He’s right about the lack of easily accessible GPG keys both on the BCH as well as — I like to add- on the BTC side of things. I didn’t find a non-retracted key of Pieter Wuille in time. I also like to note that a few things went finally completely out of the window here with this bug, for example Core’s idea of ‘the code being law’. If the code is law, does that mean that you have to accept inflation now? Or is it actually the Core devs steering the ship? Is an element of reasonableness entering the space? And yes, I sincerely believe, despite the current price ratio that BCH has a much brighter future than BTC, by being fundamentalist on the principles that matter and came along with the original white paper while not being fundamental on things that were created post-hoc — like the 1MB (now 4MW) limit in the Bitcoin Core implementation. As I also don’t think extended inflation is crucial for BTC’s operation. But anyone is free to buy or sell as they want. Let’s continue competing. Let’s civilly inform each other of bugs. May the best chain win. Finally, I like to thank Andrea Suisani, Andrew Stone and Peter Rizun for their review of this article and valuable input.
The subject of our piece for today’s debunking (April 21st, 2019), is a post that Craig Wright uploaded on the blogging website, Medium.com on November 26th, 2018, titled, ‘Why I troll’. In specific, it appears that Craig Wright took particular offense to a tweet from Bitcoin ABC developer, Peter Rizun. — Peter R. Rizun (@PeterRizun) February 15, 2020 According to the Bitcoin ABC blog post, the new IFP proposal also differs from the initial plan in two ways — miners triggering the implementation of the block reward tax via BIP 9 and the possibility of allocating funds to several whitelisted projects at the same time. Price 24H (%) Bitcoin (BTC) $10,560.16-2.63%: Ethereum (ETH) $342.61-8.05%: XRP (XRP) $0.235875-4.12%: Litecoin (LTC) $44.10-6.02%: All . Peter Rizun. Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, News. Bitcoin.com Update: Dev Fund Proposal ‘Will Not Go Through’ Without More Agreement . 28 January 2020; Crypto Breaking News ; The BCH infrastructure funding proposal initially announced by Jiang Zhuoer on January ... Support the show, consider donating: 16LVjxWGTbQuTV7Nxmpa1gCSfidbPpa71S ( http://bit.ly/2me3j6i ) With both the Bitcoin Unlimited and Segre... — Peter R. Rizun (@PeterRizun) April 3, 2019. Rizun went on saying that he does not see Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) as sufficiently differentiated from Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin SV is a digital asset that forked from Bitcoin Cash back in November 2018. At that time, the market crashed when the hard fork took place, leading the market to the ...
Peter Rizun: The Future of Bitcoin Conference 2017
Peter Rizun, chief scientist at Bitcoin Unlimited, talks about SPV at Global Blockchain Developer Conference. He offers solutions to deal with SPV privacy concerns. Watch and Enjoy! Peter Rizun visited the Coinbase office on March 16th, 2017 to discuss Bitcoin Unlimited. To own a piece of the future visit Coinbase: https://www.coinbase... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Dr. Peter Rizun - Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info) The Future of Bitcoin Conference 2017- Arnhem, the Netherlands June 30th, Regards WTC-Arnhem ... Dr Peter Rizun has been researching the economics of transaction fees in Bitcoin extensively and joined us to discuss what dynamics affect fees and why he thinks the blocksize limit will ...