Gavin Andresen

There is an PGP imposter of Bitcoin dev Gavin Andresen [blog-post]

submitted by dexX7 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

CEX.IO Blog: Gavin Andresen The King of Bitcoin?

submitted by CEX_IO to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell prophetic comment

Greg Maxwell prophetic comment submitted by cellige to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An incomplete history of the Bitcoin Cash's origin and the Minimum Viable Fork project

A common meme is that Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and Craig Wright are the ones responsible for the creation of Bitcoin Cash.
This is untrue. Those are figureheads who played a role in popularizing or (for Bitmain, allegedly) funding later development, but they played almost no part until Bitcoin Cash development was long since underway.
The Bitmain UAHF contingency plan blog post was made on 2017-06-14. This was the first event in Bitcoin Cash's history that reached a wide audience, but it came 15 months after work on what later became Bitcoin Cash began. The public decision to do a minority hard fork happened 2016-07-31, and was spearheaded by singularity87 and ftrader. ftrader did most of the initial development, which he had started back in March 2016. Even back then, the plan to fork before Segwit's activation was clear:
I want to fork before SegWit activates
Bitmain was merely joining their effort in 2017, not starting it.
Bitcoin Cash evolved out of the Minimum Viable Fork project that ftradeFreetrader started in March 2016, and which was discussed in /btcfork and /btc. Freetrader blogged about it quite a bit. If you read through his posts, you can see his initial prototype was built on Bitcoin Classic. In Oct 2016, a MVF version based on Bitcoin Core was made. Development on MVF stalled during the latter half of 2016 when it seemed like Bitcoin Unlimited's emergent consensus proposal was likely to gain adoption, but heated up again in early 2017 when BU lost support after a few remote crash 0-day exploits were found and used against BU on March 15 and again in April. Freetrader restarted his MVF work on Bitcoin Unlimited in April. The first mention of Bitcoin ABC is from May 7, 2017. The ABC project was started by deadalnix, but with mostly the same goal as ftrader's work using Core as the base instead of BU or Classic. At that time, ABC was just Core 0.14 minus RBF and Segwit; it didn't yet have any blocksize changes. Deadalnix reached out to Freetrader and asked him if he wanted to help, which Freetrader did. Freetrader made the first prototype of Bitcoin ABC with a blocksize limit other than 1 MB on or before May 21, 2017, while still working in parallel on the Bitcoin Unlimited version of the MVF. Ftrader and deadalnix continued to work on Bitcoin ABC for a couple months before Bitmain even mentioned their support for the contingency plan, and their contingency plan was basically the same as what ftrader and singularity87 had proposed back in June 2016 (but with more refinements and details worked out) -- perform a minority hard fork from BTC before Segwit activates to increase the blocksize limit, and do so in a way that ensures as clean a split as possible.
Bitcoin ABC was announced to the public on July 1st, 2017, by ftrader and by deadalnix, about 2-3 months after deadalnix and ftrader began working on it, and 2 weeks after Bitmain announced its intent to support the UAHF.
On the date that BCH forked, there were four separate compatible full-node clients:
  1. Bitcoin ABC, developed mostly by Amaury Sechet/deadalnix and freetrader;
  2. Bitcoin Unlimited, developed by the BU team (Andrew Stone/thezerg, Peter Tchipper, Andrea Suisani/sickpig, Peter Rizun, freetrader, and a few others, and funded by anonymous donors in 2016 for their Emergent Consensus proposal);
  3. Bitcoin Classic, originally developed by Gavin Andresen with a little help from me, but extensively reworked by Tom Zander; and
  4. Bitcoin XT, developed initially by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and later by Tom Harding/dgenr8 and dagurval
Of those developers, the only ones who received money while they were working on these clients were possibly deadalnix (alleged but unconfirmed to be paid by Bitmain), and Gavin (MIT Digital Currency Initiative). Everybody else was a volunteer. At the time, BU's funds only paid for conferences, travel expenses, and a $20,000 bug bounty; BU didn't start paying its developers until after the BCH hard fork.
A lot of Bitcoin Cash's early support came from Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. ViaBTC's exchange was the first to offer BCH trading pairs, and ViaBTC's pool was the first public pool to support BCH. I've also heard that Haipo Yang was the one who coined the name Bitcoin Cash -- can anyone confirm or deny this? ViaBTC played a significant role in BCH's deployment, far more than Roger Ver or Craig Wright, and had a comparable amount of influence to Bitmain. However, this was not obvious on the outside, because Haipo Yang is the kind of person who quietly builds things that work, instead of just being a prominent talking head like Craig Wright and Roger Ver are.
Roger himself actually didn't fully support Bitcoin Cash until after the fork. Initially, he had his hopes up for Segwit2x, as did I. His name was conspicuously missing in an Aug 1, 2017 article about who supports Bitcoin Cash. It was only after Segwit2x failed on Nov 8, 2017 that he started to support BCH.
Craig Wright on the other hand did praise the Bitcoin Cash initiative early on, probably largely because he hated Segwit for some reason. But he didn't do anything to help create BCH; he only spoke in favor of it. (I really wish he hadn't. His involvement in BCH fostered a lot of false beliefs among Bitcoin Cash's userbase, like the belief that selfish mining doesn't exist. We were only able to get rid of his crazed followers when BSV forked off. I'm very grateful that happened. But I digress.) Most people didn't take him seriously, but a modest minority bought his narrative hard. He was a pretty minor player at the time, and remained so until 2018.
These are the people who created Bitcoin Cash. It's easy to place all the credit/blame on the most vocal figureheads, but the marketing department does not create the product; they just sell it. If you weren't around during the product's development, it's hard to know who actually built the thing and who was just a bandwagon joiner. CSW and Roger just hopped on the bandwagon. Jihan Wu/Bitmain and Haipo Yang/ViaBTC joined the crew of the bandwagon and contributed substantially to its development and survival, but by the time they had joined the bandwagon was already in motion. The real instigators were the community members like ftrader, deadalnix, singularity87, the BU crew, the Electron Cash crew (Calin Culianu, kyuupichan, Jonald Fyookball, etc.) and the many others who contributed in various ways that I haven't documented.
For those of you who played a role or know of someone else who did but whom I didn't mention in this post, please make a comment below so we can all hear about it.
submitted by jtoomim to btc [link] [comments]

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

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

AMA: Ask Mike Anything

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

The last two years

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

The solution to the secret chain attack is simple and was described and researched by Vitalik and ETH years ago. No checkpoints needed.

Everyone is worried about what happens when BCH's hashrate returns to the saturation point (1.00 DARI on fork.lol) and if BSV/Ayre/CSW decide to attempt a reorg 51% attack to double-spend against exchanges.
This is a legitimate fear, and fortunately there's an easy solution. Each individual node simply needs to make it more difficult for a sudden long-chain reorg to overtake an established public chain.
Specifically, these rules:
  1. If the current "best" chain is 6-12 blocks from the reorg height, require that the new "best" chain have twice as much accumulated POW.
  2. If the current "best" chain is 12-48 blocks from the reorg height, require that the new "best" chain have three times as much accumulated POW.
  3. If the current "best" chain is 48-144 blocks from the reorg height, require that the new "best" chain have four times as much accumulated POW.
And if desired, 5x as much past 144, etc. This rule doesn't apply if a user manually uses invalidateblock on either branch.
This is effectively a quick and easy version of Vitalik's weak subjective scoring that prevents divergent chains in POS: https://blog.ethereum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ess1.png (Source here). Moreover, Gavin Andresen described a similar idea to me about 4 years ago.
This immediately provides complete protection for exchanges to accept any BCH transactions at 12 confirms, and provides a lot more confidence against a reorg attack in general, under all situations. It also puts the hashpower required to destructively reorg the BCH chain out of reach for CSW/SV/Ayre.
Meanwhile, it prevents users from getting stuck if there is a bug that requires a reorg - Like what happened in March 2013 when the BDB bug split the Bitcoin chain. Users who do nothing will eventually get reorg correctly even if they don't invalidateblock, and exchanges/miners who are time-sensitive can use invalidateblock to stay on track.
This approach also doesn't require active checkpoints from developers or frequent upgrades from users.
Edit: I forgot to mention, but as this rule is a consensus change, it is easy to add a sunset to the rule 15 months from now when it is unlikely for there to be any threat of an attack from SV/Ayre/CSW. Sunsets are good, assuming we don't want the rule permanently for all future situations.
submitted by JustSomeBadAdvice to btc [link] [comments]

Average Bitcoin transaction fee is now above five dollars. 80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day. So much for "banking the unbanked."

80% of Bitcoin's potential user base, and the group that stands to benefit the most from global financial inclusion, are now priced out of using Bitcoin. Very sad that it's come to this.
edit: since this post is trending on /all, I'll share some background info for the new people here:
  1. Former Bitcoin developers Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen explain what the group of coders who call themselves "Bitcoin Core" are doing: https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a
  2. Another former Bitcoin developer, Mike Hearn, explains how the Bitcoin project was hijacked: https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7
  3. One of the key methods used to hijack the Bitcoin project is the egregious censorship of the /bitcoin subreddit: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43 Reddit admins know and choose to do nothing. Just yesterday I had my post censored for linking to the Bitcoin whitepaper in /bitcoin: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6g67gw/censorship_apparently_you_arent_even_allowed_to/
The vast majority of old-school bitcoin users still believe that Bitcoin should be affordable, fast, and available to everyone. Bitcoin development was captured by a bank-funded corporation called Blockstream who literally believe that the more expensive and difficult to transact Bitcoin is, the more valuable it will be (because they apparently think that cost and difficulty of use are the defining characteristics of gold). Just a couple of days ago the CEO of Blockstream re-affirmed that he thinks even $100 transaction fees on Bitcoin are acceptable: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6fybcy/adam_back_reaffirms_that_he_thinks_100/
This subreddit, /btc, is where most of us old timers hang out since we are now mostly banned and censored from posting on /bitcoin. That subreddit has become a massive tool for pulling the wool over the eyes of new users and organizing coordinated character assasinations against any prominent individual who speaks out against their status quo. It was revealed that the Blockstream/Core group of developers even have secret chat groups alongside the moderators of /bitcoin for coordinating their trolling campaigns in: https://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07
submitted by BeijingBitcoins to btc [link] [comments]

Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".

I'm finding that "history lessons" are needed more and more, as thousands of new people swarm into crypto and land on the highly one-sided, heavily censored bitcoin sub. There are even misinformation "reps" like bitusher in r / BitcoinBeginners blatantly lying to people that are new. As a result, these newcomers have no understanding of the original purpose of Bitcoin nor its raison d'etre.
Roger puts himself out there. But Roger is neither our "leader" nor our "figurehead". He's an individual. An individual with strong ideals who doesn't do this for the money because he is already staggeringly wealthy from Bitcoin. He supports this movement because he is (and always has been) an outspoken advocate of financial sovereignty, freedom of speech, and freedom from tyranny.
Bitcoin Cash is a technical solution to a technical problem that has been ignored for too long. A problem that individuals, business, and miners have presented to Core with both urgency and utlimately anger, since 2012. Gavin Andresen, Satoshi Nakamoto's right hand man has stated publicly that "Bitcoin Cash is the Bitcoin" he was working on in 2010. Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum has publicly called out mods of Bitcoin for censorship of Bitcoin Cash. As far back as 2012 Gavin was expressing serious concern about the Core Dev team as being both "ineffective and unproductive as egos were too big, and infighting was more prominent than forward progress" (paraphrase).
Understand something:
Bitcoin Cash proponents are people who actually care about Bitcoin and why it was made. These are people who had dreams of Bitcoin bringing financial sovereignty to countries whose Governments steal citizens money right from their bank accounts without asking permission. Andreas Antonopoulos used to speak of Bitcoin bringing Banking to the poorest in the world. Companies were being built to swoop into Africa and bring micro-transfers to the SMS financial system that currently services hundreds of millions there.
The attack on Bitcoin has been under way since 2012. And it hasn't been from Bitcoin Cash. The attack was the "opportunity cost" inflicted on Bitcoin by an apathetic and out-of-touch development team that wouldn't enhance it. Fidelity came and went. NASDAQ came and went. Patrick Byrne - Bitcoins biggest fan, wanted to build the first decentralized stock exchange atop Bitcoin but found it too slow and expensive to coopt.
BitWage was created to enable salaries in Bitcoin and begin the much needed "closed-loop" system that would enable people to be paid in bitcoin, and in turn pay rent, buy groceries, and one day pay taxes in bitcoin. Never needing to cash out to Fiat. These are the dreams of those who support Bitcoin Cash. This is why there is such passion behind this movement.
What does this have to do with Roger Ver? Nothing.
The first wave of Bitcoin Cash adoption has already begun. And its coming from Merchants. Merchants who've become unable to conduct business with BTC due to high fees and 24+ hr transaction times. Cores failure to keep Bitcoin relevant and functional is the reason Bitcoin Cash is seeing any success at all with Merchants and users. Bitcoin Cash never needed to exist. It exists because of Core.
Before the shit finally hit the fan, Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase flew to meet with Core developers to try and finally get a solution in place. He walked away from that meeting declaring: Having Core as the only Dev Team is Bitcoin's Biggest Systemic Risk:
He wrote:
"The Core team contains some very high IQ people, but there are some things which I find very concerning about them:"
1) Some of them show very poor communication skills or a lack of maturity — this has hurt bitcoin’s ability to bring new protocol developers into the space.
2) They prefer ‘perfect’ solutions to ‘good enough’. And if no perfect solution exists *they seem ok with inaction*, even if that puts bitcoin at risk.
3) They seem to have a strong belief that bitcoin will not be able to scale long term, and any block size increase is a slippery slope to a future that they are *unwilling to allow** .*
"Even though core says they are ok with a hard fork to 2MB (they have it on their own roadmap, just very far in the future), they refuse to prioritize it. They prefer to withhold something that could help the network now, because they don’t trust the community to make educated decisions in the future"
Bitcoin Cash is the solution to the problems Brian outlines above.
Bitcoin Cash exists because of Core. Not because of Roger Ver.
Bitcoin Cash solves a problem that has remained unsolved for too many years.
submitted by BitttBurger to btc [link] [comments]

Yes we CAN scale on-chain, here's how we can scale to 2,000 Transactions Per Second (TPS) on-chain right now, and here's how we can scale to 500+ billion transactions per day

While the Lightning devs are busy spending years trying to solve computer engineering problems that no one can say actually have a solution or not, Bitcoincash engineers have been running the numbers on just how far on-chain scaling can go, and the numbers are amazing:
Here's how we can scale to 2,000 TPS right now, Visa-level transactions, and anyone with a mid-grade PC with 4-cores and 16gb of ram can run a full-node:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M
Bitcoincash researchers have already successfully mined gigabyte-sized blocks:
https://themerkle.com/what-is-the-gigablock-testnet-initiative/
Here's how we can do 500 billion transactions a day, with hardware and technology and bandwidth that already exists right now, no waiting around for Lightning, this is doable now, enough to carry out all the transactions done by 10 billion people every day:
http://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/17/terabyte-blocks-for-bitcoin-cash.html
Obviously we don't need that much hardware and TPS today, but the fact that it is achievable right now means it will certainly be achievable in the future as Moore's law brings down the cost of hardware needed to achieve it and as it becomes needed.
Here's a new bitcoincash tech called Graphene created by Gavin Andresen which halves the network bandwidth cost of using BCH and will be forked in this year. Halved it!
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/7b0s00/segwhat_gavin_andresen_has_developed_a_new_block/
That shows how early we are still in this industry, where one guy can release a really simply technology like Graphene that makes not one or two percent gains, but 50% gains over previous tech.
We have a LOOOONG way to go with on-chain scaling before we would absolutely HAVE to move to something like a 2nd layer solution, and anyone telling you differently has been brainwashed by people with some kind of agenda.
submitted by Anenome5 to btc [link] [comments]

Scronty (Phil Wilson) is not Satoshi

His story is entertaining fan fiction, but it's still fiction.
Right off the bat, he says there's no evidence of his involvement, which should be disqualifying on its own:
There is no verification of truth here. There is absolutely no evidential proof that I had any part in the project.
However, even the story itself is nonsense.
I told Craig via Dave to generate a new TLD ( Top Level Domain ) for us to use for correspondence on the project so that any current 'net handles are not associated with what we do. ... Dave came back after Craig obtained rcjbr.org and created the two email handles for us.
The problem is that rcjbr.org was first created in 2011.
Hal came on board almost immediately.
He was really quite interested in how we'd used ideas from his RPOW for Bitcoin.
One of the first things he did was to change the code to use a more modern form of C++.
Vectors and maps.
Suddenly, I was unable to read the source-code clearly.
Compare that to Hal's description of his early involvement:
As for your suspicion that I either am or at least helped Satoshi, I’m flattered but I deny categorically these allegations. I don’t know what more I can say. You have records of how I reacted to the announcement of Bitcoin, and I struggled to understand it. I suppose you could retort that I was able to fake it, but I don’t know what I can say to that. I’ve done some changes to the Bitcoin code, and my style is completely different from Satoshi’s. I program in C, which is compatible with C++, but I don’t understand the tricks that Satoshi used.
We know that's true, since Hal's RPOW was all C code, his Bitcoin key extractor was written in C, and even his Bitcoin contributions were practically pure C.
He'd pretty much announced the Bitcoin release in this website blog after stating his original attempt was a failure.
From Cracked, inSecure and Generally Broken
"Well.. e-gold is down the toilet. Good idea, but again centralised authority. The Beta of Bitcoin is live tomorrow. This is decentralized... We try until it works. Some good coders on this. The paper rocks"
"Are you [redacted] kidding me ?" I said. "You'd better take that down or remove to post."
It's fine if he wants to pretend that Craig made it, then deleted it before it was archived, then undeleted it for some reason, let it be archived, then deleted it yet again. However, one remaining problem is that one fake post calls Bitcoin a 'cryptocurrency' in August of 2008. That fully contradicts the evidence of when that word was first used from Satoshi's own description!:
While Satoshi never discussed anything personal in these e-mails, he would banter with Martti about little things. In one e-mail, Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,” referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run.
“Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.”
From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's totally real blog post.)
Bonus hilarity:
On May 29th 2011 I make an archive of my Bitcoin-related emails.
During the archiving process Outlook crashed.
After a computer restart I found that the Bitcoin subfolder no-longer exists and that the archived file was corrupted.
As I was using POP3 at the time, I had no other copies of those emails and they were gone forever from my end.
Compare that with how Craig's excuse for missing emails:
Wright told me that around this time he was in correspondence with Wei Dai, with Gavin Andresen, who would go on to lead the development of bitcoin, and Mike Hearn, a Google engineer who had ideas about the direction bitcoin should take. Yet when I asked for copies of the emails between Satoshi and these men he said they had been wiped when he was running from the ATO. It seemed odd, and still does, that some emails were lost while others were not.
How utterly, utterly surprising...
submitted by Contrarian__ to btc [link] [comments]

Attacking a minority hashrate chain stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced.

Gavin Andresen, Peter Rizun and Jihan Wu have all favorably discussed the possibility that a majority hashrate chain will attack the minority (by way of selfish mining and empty block DoS).
This is a disgrace and stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced.
They are basically saying that if some of us want to use a currency specified by the current Bitcoin Core protocol, it is ok to launch an attack to coax us into using their money instead. Well, no, it’s not ok, it is shameful and morally bankrupt. Even if they succeed, what they end up with is fiat money and not Bitcoin.
True genetic diversity can be obtained only with multiple protocols coexisting side by side, competing and evolving into the strongest possible version of Bitcoin.
This transcends the particular debate over the merits of BU vs. Core.
For the past 1.5 years I’ve written at some length about why allowing a split to happen is the best outcome in case of irreconcilable disagreements. I implore anyone who holds a similar view to read my blog posts on the matter and reconsider their position.
How I learned to stop worrying and love the fork
I disapprove of Bitcoin splitting, but I’ll defend to the death its right to do it
And God said, “Let there be a split!” and there was a split.
submitted by MeniRosenfeld to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"Bitcoin is not something you build companies on top of. Bitcoin is something you build economies on top of" - Andreas Antonopolous

Transcribed by me from episode #385 of Let's Talk Bitcoin
Tweetstorm of the highlights: https://twitter.com/Sesame4Bitcoins/status/1087970527887667200
On the topic of different blockchains:
Jonathan Mohan: One of my favourite people to talk to about this is Joey from Augur because he tried to build Augur on top of Bitcoin. They [Bitcoin community] made him feel like he was the dick for even asking, that he was wasting their time. It was just a very toxic experience of trying to work with that community those developers who try to build on top of Bitcoin. He would turn to Ethereum and say, “hey, there's this bug I have that Ethereum can't handle,” and then a week later Vitalik would just update the Ethereum protocol.
Andreas Antonopolous: I think that's a perfect demonstration of not just the difference in philosophy but more importantly the difference in application space. The reason Bitcoin is, and has been, and continues to be conservatively developed is because its area of specialization is super robust, super secure, super deterministic, sound money, and operating in highly adversarial environments where you can't expect the goodwill and cooperation of anyone. Not the hardware vendors, not the miners, not world's governments, not institutions, and in that environment it serves some very important needs that don't exist in the world today.
To be truly neutral, truly sound global money, it has to do those things, and that means you can't have the kind of flexibility where one person decides let's add something to the protocol without very carefully thinking about all of the implications that has down the road - Bitcoin has specialized in that domain.
It's why even though I believe we'll have a proliferation of different currencies in the long run, none of those will be able to effectively compete for the one application of super secure robust sound money that survives adversarial environments. And for exactly that reason Ethereum, can't do that, will never do that. In fact, if it tries to do [sound money] it would actually destroy its other benefits (flexibility). Those are two different application spaces and you can't occupy both at the same time.
Sure, some developers are just dicks and that has nothing to do with with the underlying issue but some of that has to do with the fact that Bitcoin has to be more conservative in order to serve that application space. It cannot simply adopt changes without thinking very very far ahead about the implications those changes will have.
Bitcoin is not something you build companies on top of. Bitcoin is something you build economies on top of.
I never saw really Bitcoin as something that you build companies or apps on top of. The broader cryptocurrency space is playing that game out, and ironically, all of those other things/apps fail to work if you shut off the ability for them to have a sound, neutral money that can be exchanged no matter what, anywhere.
Adam B. Levine: So that kind of brings to mind another question, do you have any past strongly held convictions regarding Bitcoin or cryptocurrency where you've changed your mind?
Andreas M. Antonopolous: Back in 2015. I thought that we had to address scaling sooner rather than later, and I made some comments about that. I supported a tweet that Gavin Andresen made at the time about increasing the block size and that was a belief that I held strongly. Over the next year, I took a 180 and went in the exact opposite direction. The reason I made a 180 was really simple: from the very early stages, I believed in this idea that the protocol ossifies over time as it gets embedded in more devices. And once it's ossified, you can't make any changes. So I've always thought we have a narrowing window of things we can change in the core protocol to make improvements, the absolutely necessary improvements, before that window shuts, and then you can't make any changes.
It's like IPV4 - it's in too many devices, you can't even upgrade it anymore. I believe that's happening. When the scaling debates started I thought we had a window of about two to three years. The debate around scaling which turned into a power play demonstrated practically that that window had already closed for many controversial decisions. That we could not reach consensus, and that the power struggle and ability to make money in that power struggle was already trumping engineering. At that point I realized that in fact, that window was much narrower.
Once I realized that, I also understood that there are other more important things that need to be done first: privacy being the most important. And if we have a narrow window, privacy needs to be done in the base layer but scaling can be done in the second layer. Therefore I flipped. I've started believing that privacy was needed first and scalability could wait until later and mostly be done on the second layer quite effectively. I took a lot of flack for that, but it wasn't arbitrary. It was because the facts changed and based on new facts a strongly held opinion was worth nothing because I had to revise my understanding of the space.
Jonathan Mohan: I don't think the enemies of Bitcoin are the Rogers or the Bitcoin Cash guys. I think the real enemies are going to be the exchanges in the listing agents and what they will or will not allow to be called Bitcoin when a consumer presses “buy,” when Bitcoin ultimately does have privacy. There's no such thing as private money and I think that everyone says that. Bitcoin needs to be more like physical dollars, and I think that if you try to sell physical dollars today, you go to jail. I don't know how legal Bitcoin will be once it's made private and further I don't know to what extent any of the people we consider allies like the Coinbases of the world would in any way support a Bitcoin with privacy in it. I actually I think we're past the point of Bitcoin having privacy, and if a Bitcoin were to have privacy that it would be some marginalized fork that no one can get access to.
I think so my fear has always been: make sure you're building SSL not PGP. Cuz almost everyone uses SSL no one uses PGP. I think we're at the point now where the facts as they are, it's that if Bitcoin were to become truly private, it would be basically the PGP of Bitcoin and the one that isn't would be the SSL of Bitcoin.
Andreas Antonopolous: I really like the fact that all of the privacy developments right now, specifically things like taproot and graftroot are actually around obfuscation and plausible deniability to give the exchanges a “see no evil” out of exactly that conundrum. Meaning that if it looks like a payment to a public key and you can no longer tell the difference between that and a Coinjoin, you're done.
Stephanie Murphy: I don't know what the future is gonna look like, and nobody knows. We can speculate and think about it and it's really fun, but at the end of the day, none of us can really even imagine it fully and we're gonna have to wait and see what happens, but that’s part of the excitement. Being aware that you don't know is also exciting because you can just be surprised by what comes out and not try to control everything or plan everything.
Andreas Antonopolous: I'd like to take the opposite perspective, kind of more optimistic. Because what what you say is true and that's definitely happening but the opposite is also happening. Which is when I think that there's an intractable problem or a very hard problem that we seem stuck on, and then suddenly a brilliant solution emerges from nowhere that nobody expected. That was my experience with for example Ethereum. I had not imagined the application of smart contracts in the way Ethereum did it when it came out when I read that first whitepaper by Vitalik in 2014. I had not seen that coming. Mimble Wimble, Lightning Network, the softfork solutions in Segwit. There's all of these technologies and inventions that came out of nowhere, there was nothing really to prepare me for the idea that these were under development or that someone had thought of them, then boom, suddenly they're on the on the radar. So that's also another thing that makes this such an exciting space: can't predict anything other than it won't be boring.
submitted by lobt to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Truth About Bitcoin's Loss of Market Share

There are multiple reddit users like mrxsdcuqr7x284k6 claiming or implying in this thread that Bitcoin's huge loss of market share is not a result of the Bitcoin Core small block policy.
I don't know what the exact market share of Bitcoin would be right now if Bitcoin was not successfully derailed by people like Greg Maxwell & Theymos who fought hard to stop even small block size increases. What I do know is that the huge loss of market share Bitcoin has undergone and the growth of other crypto currencies is largely the result of what they did.
Anyone who is honest & intelligent and was around before, during and after Bitcoin lost massive market share, knows that the cause of this massive loss of market share and the growth of many other cryptos was a direct result of the artificial constraining of the transaction processing capacity of Bitcoin.
This is not merely a hindsight claim. Vast numbers of Bitcoiners TOLD EVERYONE that this is what would happen if the block size was not increased.
The only people who didn't see this coming (or claimed they didn't see it coming) are the Bitcoin Core supporters from that time who promoted Greg Maxwell's alternative design for Bitcoin.

So what was the Bitcoin Core message of 2015?

Check this 2015 Bitcoin Core blog post: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#why-upgrade
Note it says:
We don’t expect fees to get as high as the highest seen in this table; they are just provided for reference.
What is the highest listed fee in the table? $0.756
What were the highest median fees during December of 2017? OVER $30
Over just the last 6 months there have been multiple median fee spikes that go above this supposed "high" value of $0.756

What was the message of the Bitcoiners who wanted to follow Satoshi's plan during 2015?

Here's Mike Hearn in 2015 in an interview saying that the people that don't want to the block size to be increased want users to migrate to other system when the block size fills up. Whether the people he is referring to actually did want that or not is irrelevant. This is just one example (of 1000s that could be dug up) of Bitcoiners stating plainly that failure to bump the block size will lead to people migrating to other systems.
Here is what Mike Hearn predicted would happen if the block size isn't raised:
The aftermath
Bitcoin would eventually recover. Users who became frustrated at the extreme unreliability would give up and stop trying to spend their coins. Many coins would make it to an exchange wallet and stay there. Node operators would make their nodes auto-restart. SPV wallets would find some trustworthy central authority to get fee data from.
Most importantly, the overload would eventually go away …. because the users would go away. The backlog would clear. Fees would fall to the minimum again.
So life would go on.
Bitcoin would survive.
But it would have lost critical momentum. It would have become the MySpace of digital currencies. The faithful would have lost a lot of faith, and businesses that were trying to bring Bitcoin to the mainstream would “pivot” towards something else. People who were motivated by Making The World A Better Place™ would conclude the ordinary people around them would never use their products, and so they’d leave.
source
There are many details in Mike's blog post that he predicted wrong, but it's clear that he knew that the Bitcoin network would be degraded because of this fully saturated, small block policy. He knew users would leave the system.
Here's Jeff Garzik in 2015 warning people about the economic change event that will occur if the block size is not increased.
What did Gavin Andresen say would likely happen as a result of the small block policy? He said:
If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable.
source
These are just a tiny sample of comments from prominent Bitcoiners. They are not anomalous. They are representative of what everyone fighting against this small-block policy was saying.
Please don't let these ignorant fools & gaslighting snakes deceive you or others.
I remember exactly what happened back then. I also know exactly what Bitcoin is and which chain is Bitcoin.
submitted by hapticpilot to btc [link] [comments]

Although developers are vital to the health of a BlockChain system, they are not necessarily experts. Fundamentally Bitcoin is an economic incentive system, with deep aspects of game theory. Not all devs are good at that.

Sometimes I think developers want to act like they are the experts of the system, when it may not necessarily be the case. There is a big difference between generalists, and specialists as Peter Rizun explains. Bitcoin is fundamentally an economic incentive system, which is why people like csw really understand the system better in some ways than specialist developers. The code is only the skeleton of the system, the real magic is the economic and social interactions between the different participants in the system. People like Ryan X Charles and csw seem to understand this:
"Bitcoin is not a crypto system, Bitcoin is an Economic System that uses cryptography. If you think about it that way things just make a lot more sense. Its an Economic protocol, and yeah we use crypto and computers and stuff like that, but its really economics first"
I think people like csw have a real deep grasp on the game theory, and economic incentives of how Bitcoin works. This is clearly evident from his excellent paper about POW and theory of the firm. I think a lot of the drama stems from the fact that developers don't like their expertise to be challenged because they want to feel like they are in charge, but often they lack economic/game theoretic understanding of how Bitcoin works, and that is a huge problem. That may be the biggest problem in Bitcoin today. Sometimes devs just miss the forest for the trees as Gavin Andresen has said.
But this is not to say developers are not important. Developers need respect and they are vital to the health of this system. Although their power and influence can be dangerous and their egos should be kept in check, we also must be able to respect them and make them feel welcomed, and appreciated. We have to encourage them to work. Its a very fine balance that we have to maintain of respecting the devs, but not holding them up on a pedestal either. Peter Rizun kind of sums up the dev/specialist perspective as well and I think it helps everyone to put themselves in their shoes:
I've always been annoyed with the attitude that some engineers and scientists have of being "bored" with lower-level implementation details, viewing technicians as second-class problem solvers. In my opinion, you don't really fully understand a problem or design until you get into the messy real-world details. When I joined the community in 2013, I was surprised that we had a sort of "reverse prejudism" instead, holding people that actually do the coding in higher regard intellectually (you don't even GitHub??
So it seems the main problem we have is that we have generalist type experts and specialists. Or to put it a different way we have different levels of experts, and everyone has ego and is threatened by the others. We have to learn to work together and put the drama aside. Realize that we need all types of people. Economists, coders, computer scientists, mathematicians, statisticians. Bitcoin is a hugely complex system and probably there is nobody that is a true expert of every facet of the system. Everyone has their specialty, even if their specialty is a more general understanding/birds eye view of the system. So perhaps csw needs to work on respecting the devs more and appreciating their understanding of the small details, and the devs need to respect csw's understanding of the larger system. We have some really strong and talented members of the community. Its like a basketball team. If everyone tries to hog the ball and do it themselves you get nowhere, but when we work together we achieve great things. Hopefully some will appreciate this as food for thought as we move on into the future.
submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

Something weird is going on

Coinbase CEO here. We take our fair share of flak on /bitcoin so in some ways it was a normal day. But I was also pretty surprised at what I saw happen today and wanted to share it since it is important that we keep the /bitcoin community free of voting manipulation.
Today we made an announcement on our blog saying that we're giving away $20k of bitcoin to people building bitcoin apps (a hackathon), along with some other stuff (Boost.VC investment to the winner, guest judges, etc). Not an earth shattering announcement by any means, but overall a positive thing for the bitcoin community that will generate some cool new apps and developer interest.
Yet you probably never heard about it.
The first post on /bitcoin which went live linked to our blog post. http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/31s4gz/introducing_the_bitcoin_hackathon_v2/
Combined up and down votes came to a total of 0, along with a nice "Fuck off Coinbase" message.
Some media decided to write about the hackathon, and thinking the above situation was sort of strange, I went ahead and posted a link to one of the articles: http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/31son1/adam_draper_fred_wilson_and_gavin_andresen_to/
Same thing happend: 2 upvotes and and a nice "fuck off Coinbase" message by the same throw away account.
This is especially surprising if you consider that last year when we ran the exact same Hackathaon, it got 289 upvotes. http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1xu0ot/coinbase_launches_bithack_an_online_bitcoin/
Seems pretty obvious it would get upvotes. You don't even have to use the Coinbase API at all - you can literally build any cool app that uses bitcoin in any way and we will give you free money. The outrage!
I've been trying to think about how this happened. My only theories are:
1. Reddit voting ring detection is busted and is downvoting us incorrectly
There are a bunch of Coinbase employees in one office behind a single IP, and some of them might have upvoted it (although we discourage this in case it triggers voting ring detection). I can't imagine more than a few Coinbase employees upvoted it, if any, before it got downvoted though, so I'd be a little surprised if this was the case.
2. There are bots or trolls actively down voting Coinbase stuff
This seems plausible given the throw away account chiming in on both posts. But they would need (I assume) more than a troll or two to actively down it into oblivion.
3. There is some other explanation I haven't considered
I have noticed that a lot of our posts that make it to /bitcoin have very binary outcomes - either they sail to the front page and get upvoted to the moon, or some trolls snag the first few votes, and it never sees the light of day.
Anyway, if there is some other theory I would love to hear it - it would really suck if people were figuring out ways to manipulate reddit's voting for any purpose. Even if you don't like Coinbase, hopefully we can all get behind preventing voting rings (and giving money to bitcoin developers).
So...what the gosh darn heck is going on?

Edit: troll justice, now that this is on the front page please register for our hackathon which is giving $70k in total prizes to people building new bitcoin apps all over the world. Fred Wilson, Chris Dixon, Gavin Andresen, and Adam Draper will be guest judges. This coincides with the launch of our new developer site. Thank you!
submitted by bdarmstrong to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

$1.1 Million Bitcoin Lawsuit Alleging Craig Wright Is Satoshi Continues

$1.1 Million Bitcoin Lawsuit Alleging Craig Wright Is Satoshi Continues

https://preview.redd.it/mx5bhhtr11821.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=030cf243188346030302bd8e8ea1d5a9a46171ca
https://cryptoiq.co/1-1-million-bitcoin-lawsuit-alleging-craig-wright-is-satoshi-continues/
A $1.1 million Bitcoin lawsuit against Craig Wright in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida continues, with the latest ruling handed down on Dec. 27.
The plaintiff is the Estate of Dave Kleiman, and it alleges Kleiman and Wright mined 1.1 million Bitcoins together during the early days of Bitcoin, and when Kleiman died, Wright laundered the money into his own accounts and did not give anything to Kleiman’s heirs. The lawsuit further alleges that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, which has been on and off a heated debate in the crypto space.
In the latest order, the court dismisses two counts against Wright, while Wright must respond to the other seven counts by Jan. 10. Count three, which was dismissed, is an allegation that Wright misappropriated trade secrets belonging to Kleiman related to smart contracts and blockchain technology. Count four says the theft of trade secrets violates the federal defense of trade secrets act, and this count was also dismissed.
Estate Of Dave Kleiman Asks For $11.4 billion Judgement
The remaining counts which have not been dismissed are far more serious. Count one demands $11.427 billion or the return of the Bitcoins and forked assets, like Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc.
Count two alleges that the theft of the Bitcoins is unjust enrichment. Count five alleges that Wright breached his fiduciary duty to Kleiman. Count six alleges that Wright did not pay for Kleiman’s share of their joint company. Count seven alleges that Wright committed fraud while taking Kleiman’s assets and intellectual property, including the forging of contracts and signatures. Count eight alleges that Wright committed fraud against Dave Kleiman’s children and tried to use them to cover up the fraud. Count nine asks for a permanent injunction against Wright to return all stolen Bitcoin and intellectual property.
A jury trial is scheduled for June 10 in which these standing allegations and claims will be decided. Wright tried to have the case dismissed with a motion in April 2018, offering reasons why the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on this case. However, the judge has decided in the most recent order that it does have jurisdiction, and the case will proceed.
Evidence In The Case Alleges Craig Wright Is Satoshi
The most intriguing part of this case is the evidence presented that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto in the defendant’s amended complaint. Apparently, Wright and Kleiman met in 2003 and communicated about various technological topics for years after that. In 2008, they co-authored a paper on the mechanics of overwriting hard drive data.
In March 2008, Wright emailed Kleiman and said “I need your help editing a paper I am going to release later this year. I have been working on a new form of electronic money. Bit cash, Bitcoin … [y]ou are always there for me Dave. I want you to be part of it all.”
In late 2008, Wright sent another email to Kleiman, saying “I need your help. You edited my paper, and now I need to have you aid me build this idea.” On Jan. 12, 2009, only nine days after Bitcoin launched on Jan. 3, Wright and Kleiman sent each other Bitcoin transactions, making them some of the earliest Bitcoin users.
The lawsuit alleges that Kleiman and Wright mined 1.1 million Bitcoins together, and these are all identifiable and stored in Wright’s wallets. Wright indicated that he has this tremendous amount of Bitcoins during a speech in which he said he had more money than the country Rwanda, where he was speaking.
In May 2016, Wright claimed to be Satoshi in a series of blog posts. The best evidence that Wright is Satoshi was a blog post from early Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen. In the post, Andresen claims that Wright signed a message with cryptographic keys that only Satoshi could possess. Ultimately Wright never released these sign messages to the public, leaving the claim in doubt, and Wright is now commonly referred to as faketoshi.
As this case enters the trial period, it will certainly shed light on the true nature of Craig Wright’s early involvement in Bitcoin, and whether he really is Satoshi Nakamoto.
submitted by turtlecane to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

This is good for Bitcoin.

This is more of a dramatic happening than full-blown drama, although there is a lot of bickering and shorter slap fights in almost all the threads.
Background
Satoshi Nakamoto is the pseudonym of the creator of Bitcoin and patron saint of the /bitcoin community. No one ever saw Satoshi in person or knows who he is. Today, BBC and The Economist reported that Australian entrepeneur Craig Wright came forward and claimed to be Satoshi. Apparently, he identified himself by providing some kind of technical proof to the newspapers:
At the meeting with the BBC, Mr Wright digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of Bitcoin's development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or "mined" by Satoshi Nakamoto.
A couple of former co-developers/team members (Gavin Andresen & Jon Matonis) also confirmed that he is indeed Satoshi Nakamoto.
In addition, Craig Wright himself wrote a blog post about him being Satoshi in which he explains the process of verifying a set of cryptographic keys. I assume that this is the process by which he identified himself to the newspapers and Gavin Andresen. He provides a set of signatures/keys (I really have no idea what I'm talking about) as examples for this explanation that are not unique to Satoshi, which is quickly found out by the bitcoin community.
Wright never claimed explicitly that the signatures used as examples in his blog post were proof that he is Satoshi, though, and the newspapers never refer to the blog post but say that he provided evidence in person.
Where the drama starts
/bitcoin is having none of it. Craig Wright's signature is worthless (about the signatures used in his blog post) is made a sticky and gilded. The Economist actually published a new article in response to it, demanding better proof of Wright.
Meanwhile, the whole front page of /bitcoin is full of threads about this. Most people don't believe Wright's claim.
But there are a few who at least give Wright the benefit of the doubt. Then we have the conspiracy theorists.
The whole story is a setup to discredit Bitcoin and come up with fedcoins... Is part of the plan with Silk Road. And I think Gavin is pushed/forced to say that... The only prove is that he will move the 1 million coins... And that clown will never prove that he can move them.
Then we have the people who dissect Wright's blog post
Craig was a bit clever here. He did not cheat, and did not use modified command line tools. He indeed posted a message signed by Satoshi's key, that validates correctly. This might explain how he fooled a few people. However, that message just so happens to be a hash of an early Bitcoin transaction, not anything proving his identity. Here's how he did it.
/btc, the part of the bitcoin community who left /bitcoin after the topmod (theymos) of /bitcoin squashed all discussion about a change in block size (don't ask me, I still don't know what I'm talking about), is a bit more ready to believe that Wright is Satoshi, mainly because they apparently like Andresen more than /bitcoin does since he is on their side re block size (they call the other side "smallblockers", lol). Doesn't mean that there is no discussion, though. /btc's frontpage is littered with selfposts requesting extra proof from Wright (e.g. Signed message, move coins, or GTFO) or even claiming that he's trolling. This must obviously be the case since
He is using Windows with Notepad. Why the hell would Gavin take him seriously?
I for one don't know.
They have their conspiracy theories, too.
Bitcoin isn't one man, guys. It really isn't this guy. So stop looking at this guy and away from Bitcoin - he's doing exactly what he and whomever he's working with want, which is to get you to look away.
So, what's being hidden? Isn't there some big meetup going on right now? Doesn't this pattern sound familiar?
There is a whole 'nother drama about Gavin Andresen. He wrote his own blog post confirming that Wright is Satoshi which lead to drama on /bitcoin. Later he made a comment explaining how Wright proved his identity to him on /btc.
Andresen's credibility is on the line now and he talks to Wired, again confirming his belief that Wright is Satoshi. Some people on /btc and /bitcoin believe all of it is actually a conspiracy to remove Andresen from the core development team.
People are also unsure what if anything would convince them that Wright is Satoshi.
And finally, we have Andreas Anatonopoulos, apparently another bitcoin celeb, who said that he was asked to verify Wright being Satoshi but declined because it doesn't matter who Satoshi is. This leads to /bitcoin fellating him vigorously agreeing with him completely as if they hadn't just spent 12 hours or so losing their minds over it.
Breaking news: Now someone claims that Wright didn't write the technical part of his blog post himself but stole it from him. You can't make this shit up.
ETA: Top minds...
Dear Craig, you're unable to scam reddit. We're disorganised infighting rabble, but we're the ultimate bullshit detectors.
..........
Disclaimer: A few/some/all details in this might be wrong since I'm actually not that interested in bitcoin, I just like the drama surrounding it.
Signature: 49 20 77 61 6e 74 20 74 68 65 20 6c 61 73 74 20 74 77 6f 20 68 6f 75 72 73 20 6f 66 20 6d 79 20 6c 69 66 65 20 62 61 63 6b 2e 20
submitted by Enibas to SubredditDrama [link] [comments]

Craig S Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto and why that matters

(Note, this was mostly for the benefit of /btc (and subsequently buried, of course), since this sub is generally much more critical of Craig Wright. However, if anyone is not familiar with the situation, maybe it can be illuminating.)
I'll start out with why it matters. It looks like Craig is active on reddit again, and his company (nChain) is applying for patents in the bitcoin space.
I hope we can all agree that if CSW is not Satoshi, then CSW is a fraud and a liar. Some may consider this an ad hominem attack, but that's not the case, since I'm not trying to refute any one specific argument of his. I'm saying that his word should have less credibility by default. If your retort to that is "we should take all arguments solely by the merits", then I assume you trust everyone exactly the same and don't give 'experts' any additional weight. It is true that arguments should generally stand apart from the arguer, but it's not true that the credibility of the arguer is a completely irrelevant piece of information.
Anyway, on to the issue of whether Craig is Satoshi or not. I'll put aside the obvious things (no evidence of Craig having C++ programming skills, writing style completely different from Satoshi's, being in practically the opposite timezone that Satoshi is suspected to have been in, etc. (because the common objection is that he was part of the Satoshi team, despite there being no evidence that there was more than just one person)), and focus on the timeline.
According to the London Review of Books author Andrew O'Hagan:
Wright had founded a number of businesses that were in trouble and he was deeply embedded in a dispute with the ATO ... After initial scepticism, and in spite of a slight aversion to Wright’s manner, MacGregor was persuaded, and struck a deal with Wright, signed on 29 June 2015.
Here's a significant part:
Within a few months, according to evidence later given to me by Matthews and MacGregor, the deal would cost MacGregor’s company $15 million. ‘That’s right,’ Matthews said in February this year. ‘When we signed the deal, $1.5 million was given to Wright’s lawyers. But my main job was to set up an engagement with the new lawyers … and transfer Wright’s intellectual property to nCrypt’ – a newly formed subsidiary of nTrust. ‘The deal had the following components: clear the outstanding debts that were preventing Wright’s business from getting back on its feet, and work with the new lawyers on getting the agreements in place for the transfer of any non-corporate intellectual property, and work with the lawyers to get Craig’s story rights.’ From that point on, the ‘Satoshi revelation’ would be part of the deal. ‘It was the cornerstone of the commercialisation plan,’ Matthews said, ‘with about ten million sunk into the Australian debts and setting up in London.’
So Wright had a financial motivation for claiming to be Satoshi. Some time passed, and eventually the company had a big 'reveal', which included privately 'signing' a message from the genesis block for Gavin Andresen and others, leaking supposedly 'hacked' documents (including a 'Tulip Trust' document that so conveniently states that no record of this transaction will be filed in the US or Australia), and a very clearly faked and post-dated blog entry 'proving' that CSW was involved in bitcoin from the very beginning. (Here's the archive link showing that blog post never existed.)
When people were skeptical of Andresen's and Matonis's claim that CSW signed messages from early blocks, CSW said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. He then went on to provide a completely bogus 'proof' on his blog. When he was called out on it, he initially blamed others:
‘I gave them the wrong thing,’ he said. ‘Then they changed it. Then I didn’t correct it because I was so angry.
It's only here where his story changes from I am Satoshi, to I've all along been trying to tear down the image of Satoshi. First, let's note that the latter claim does not require CSW to be Satoshi. Second, note that it's been completely inconsistent with everything that's happened up to this point. As far as I know, there's no evidence that CSW had even heard of bitcoin before around 2014 or so.
If that's not enough, please read this part of O'Hagan's story carefully:
We spoke about Wright’s possible lies. I said that all through these proof sessions, he’d acted this like this was the last thing he ever wanted. ‘That’s not true,’ MacGregor said. ‘He freaking loves it. Why was I so certain he’d do that BBC interview the next day? It’s adoration. He wants this more than we want this, but he wants to come out of this looking like he got dragged into it.’ He told me if everything had gone to plan, the groundwork was laid for selling the patents. It was a really big deal. He said Ramona had said that if Wright doesn’t come out you still have this really smart guy who has made all these patents, who knows all about bitcoin.
So there you have it. An admitted liar who has a strong financial motive to claim Satoshi's identity provides bogus proof and when confronted with it retreats to the excuse that the plan has been to kill Satoshi the whole time!!, despite that not making any sense, not fitting with the timeline, or even helping the proposition that he is Satoshi if it's true.
Finally, I (and /btc mod todu ) think it's sad that Roger Ver claims to have an opinion on the matter but does not want to share it. Financial ties to nChain? If it's just to 'let people judge for themselves', then I hope this post helps.
submitted by Contrarian__ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

HODLer holding no more - This time it really looks different

Long time hodler here. Won't post my wallet address but click on the imgur link and you can see on the screenshot I took when I started hodling. Back when MultiBit wasn't even MultiBit HD and Peercoin was still a thing.
Alas, with the drop in price, this week I'm giving up on Bitcoin. Maybe not forever, but for an year or two, in case things change.
Here's my reasoning, I post it here in the hopes someone can prove me wrong. As they say on UFO, "I want to believe"
Reason #1 - This time adoption is actually falling
Back in the day, Microsoft started accepting BTC. Then Expedia, Steam... Now they are all bailing out. People will tell me about lightning, what brings us to...
Reason #2 - This time the tech is not going forward.
Don't get me wrong, I know that in theory (and even in testnet) Lightning seems to work perfectly but that's not where my bitcoins are. My bitcoins are on mainnet, a place where devolpment has stalled, objectively speaking. Segwit adoption hasn't even broken 50% and the most known wallets are not using it (BRD, which used to be called bread wallet, blockchain.info, etc.) and lightning is far more complex than segwit. The programming of watch towers alone for Christ sake, is more complex than implementing segwit 5 times over.
Reason #3 - There are no newbies left to be converted.
Back in 2013, even if the price fell 90%, it didn't matter much. Because most people hadn't heard about it. Now, everyone and their uncle are aware that bitcoin exists and that it went all the way up to $20,000 and now it's down to $6,500. It is far easier to convince someone who does not know anything about bitcoin to use it than it is to convince someone who lost 60% of what they invested in this "internet money" to come back and give it another chance. If you ever find yourself divorced, would you rather find a new girl or go back to your ex, whom you can't even think about without feeling a sour taste in your tongue?
Reason #4 - The competition will be hard to beat.
Back in 2012, you could tell your friends about this "magical" thing that was sending someone money over the internet, with the click of a button. Now we have apple pay and NFC. Even with Lightning, I find it hard to believe that bitcoin will ever be less cumbersome than the methods of payment we have now.
Reason #5 - Even if the price goes back up, the network is still broken.
I hate to side with Bcash supporters but the truth is Bitcoin "classic", BTC, is still now ready to be used by everybody. Even if, by some unkown reason, we get everyone we had in December '17 back and the price goes all the way up to $20,000, fees will be the same they were back then. It's still taboo to talk about a reasonable block size increase. Do you remember when it cost $20 to send a transaction? That's still the case if bitcoin gains adoption. I mean, we may get it down to $16 with batching and 37% of the wallets using Segwit but the problem is NOT solved and lightning as a fix is at least 5 years away.
Reason #6 - The speculation money is all on ICOs.
If we have no widespread adoption we have to rely on speculators to drive prices up. Back in 2013 we had them on board. Now they're gone, there is no easy money to be made in BTC. And there will never be a CryptoKitties that will make you rich overnight. Bitcoin is just too old to be a talented child that can join the Jackson Five and still to young to play with KISS. It's a teenager that is too embarassed to go to school with mom but too young to drive.
Reason #7 - We can't buy and can't mine anymore
In theory we can, of course. But I still remember 2013 when I bought one whole bitcoin every month, with what was left from my salary. Now I can't even buy 0,1 BTC with the same money. And I can't mine either. Back than if you didn't have any money you could get BTC that way. Now... It's too expensive to be bought and too cheap to be sold. Maybe that's why we call ourselves HODLERS. Holding is all one can do now.
Reason #8 - It's not "my club" anymore
From time to time I still check Satoshi's profile on bitcointalk.org. And Gavin Andresen's blog. And Mike Hearn's. Now they're gone. One can't help but feel old. I know this is not a logical reason to give up on bitcoin but still... I feel like the guy who's still trying to hook up with the cheerleader from high school while all of my friends have moved on...
I know it's an old cliché. But this time, it really looks different.
submitted by elverino to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Craig S Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto and why that matters

I'll start out with why it matters. It looks like Craig is active on reddit again, and his company (nChain) is applying for patents in the bitcoin space.
I hope we can all agree that if CSW is not Satoshi, then CSW is a fraud and a liar. Some may consider this an ad hominem attack, but that's not the case, since I'm not trying to refute any one specific argument of his. I'm saying that his word should have less credibility by default. If your retort to that is "we should take all arguments solely by the merits", then I point you to this sub's collective hate of Blockstream. I sincerely doubt that you treat their arguments with the exact same skepticism as, say, Jonald Fyookball It is true that arguments should generally stand apart from the arguer, but it's not true that the credibility of the arguer is a completely irrelevant piece of information.
Anyway, on to the issue of whether Craig is Satoshi or not. I'll put aside the obvious things (no evidence of Craig having C++ programming skills, writing style completely different from Satoshi's, being in practically the opposite timezone that Satoshi is suspected to have been in, etc. (because the common objection is that he was part of the Satoshi team, despite there being no evidence that there was more than just one person)), and focus on the timeline.
According to the London Review of Books author Andrew O'Hagan:
Wright had founded a number of businesses that were in trouble and he was deeply embedded in a dispute with the ATO ... After initial scepticism, and in spite of a slight aversion to Wright’s manner, MacGregor was persuaded, and struck a deal with Wright, signed on 29 June 2015.
Here's a significant part:
Within a few months, according to evidence later given to me by Matthews and MacGregor, the deal would cost MacGregor’s company $15 million. ‘That’s right,’ Matthews said in February this year. ‘When we signed the deal, $1.5 million was given to Wright’s lawyers. But my main job was to set up an engagement with the new lawyers … and transfer Wright’s intellectual property to nCrypt’ – a newly formed subsidiary of nTrust. ‘The deal had the following components: clear the outstanding debts that were preventing Wright’s business from getting back on its feet, and work with the new lawyers on getting the agreements in place for the transfer of any non-corporate intellectual property, and work with the lawyers to get Craig’s story rights.’ From that point on, the ‘Satoshi revelation’ would be part of the deal. ‘It was the cornerstone of the commercialisation plan,’ Matthews said, ‘with about ten million sunk into the Australian debts and setting up in London.’
So Wright had a financial motivation for claiming to be Satoshi. Some time passed, and eventually the company had a big 'reveal', which included privately 'signing' a message from the genesis block for Gavin Andresen and others, leaking supposedly 'hacked' documents (including a 'Tulip Trust' document that so conveniently states that no record of this transaction will be filed in the US or Australia), and a very clearly faked and post-dated blog entry 'proving' that CSW was involved in bitcoin from the very beginning. (Here's the archive link showing that blog post never existed.)
When people were skeptical of Andresen's and Matonis's claim that CSW signed messages from early blocks, CSW said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. He then went on to provide a completely bogus 'proof' on his blog. When he was called out on it, he initially blamed others:
‘I gave them the wrong thing,’ he said. ‘Then they changed it. Then I didn’t correct it because I was so angry.
It's only here where his story changes from I am Satoshi, to I've all along been trying to tear down the image of Satoshi. First, let's note that the latter claim does not require CSW to be Satoshi. Second, note that it's been completely inconsistent with everything that's happened up to this point. As far as I know, there's no evidence that CSW had even heard of bitcoin before around 2014 or so.
If that's not enough, please read this part of O'Hagan's story carefully:
We spoke about Wright’s possible lies. I said that all through these proof sessions, he’d acted this like this was the last thing he ever wanted. ‘That’s not true,’ MacGregor said. ‘He freaking loves it. Why was I so certain he’d do that BBC interview the next day? It’s adoration. He wants this more than we want this, but he wants to come out of this looking like he got dragged into it.’ He told me if everything had gone to plan, the groundwork was laid for selling the patents. It was a really big deal. He said Ramona had said that if Wright doesn’t come out you still have this really smart guy who has made all these patents, who knows all about bitcoin.
So there you have it. An admitted liar who has a strong financial motive to claim Satoshi's identity provides bogus proof and when confronted with it retreats to the excuse that the plan has been to kill Satoshi the whole time!!, despite that not making any sense, not fitting with the timeline, or even helping the proposition that he is Satoshi if it's true.
Finally, I (and /btc mod todu ) think it's sad that Roger Ver claims to have an opinion on the matter but does not want to share it. Financial ties to nChain? If it's just to 'let people judge for themselves', then I hope this post helps.
submitted by Contrarian__ to btc [link] [comments]

Is it possible to objectively discuss things without getting dragged to the "Dragons Den"?

The computer science debates about the best ways to scale Bitcoin are far too important for us to take “sides”.
“Beating” the other guy doesn’t serve any of us, and it doesn’t serve Bitcoin.
In these discussions we need to be as sure as possible that we are not just winning an argument, or making talking points but that we are factually correct.
One thing everyone should agree on is the need for truthful and factual statements when discussing these important issues.
Unfortunately, the Bitcoin community learned some very bad habits from the world of politics.
[Disclaimer: I do not work for Blockstream and I never have, just as I did not work for Roger Ver the other day when I defended him against a similar baseless attack about Mt.. Gox https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6846wo/message_to_rogedgvnrqk/ ]
For example, it is difficult to have any discussion in Bitcoin without someone bringing up the “Dragon’s Den”.
"Dragon’s Den" is brought up as an argument point often by everyone from major minors, to CEOs and analysts.
But what do we really know about “Dragon’s Den”?
What is the full body of evidence regarding the claims about Dragons Den?
Well, it’s pretty simple:
1) One lone LN developer claimed that there was a secret channel used for trolling
2) Someone posted a screenshot showing the existence of the slack channel and some people chatting in it
What is absent from this evidence:
So really, we have CEOs, miners and thousands of people who care passionately about Bitcoin using “Dragon’s Den” as a talking point when really – – – the entire thesis about dragons den comes down to “a guy said”.
One doesn’t even have to be critical of the developer who claimed its existence to have doubts about the story.
If you look carefully, Joseph Poon never even claimed to have first-hand knowledge about dragons den being used for trolling – he didn’t even mention that he ever visited the channel.
One guy saying something doesn’t make it true.
One doesn't even have to think that Joseph is a bad actor (and I don't) maybe he was misinformed, didn't think clearly before making his statement, had a misunderstanding or exaggerated.
There was a Reddit post asking him to clarify but it doesn't seem he did.
So what is Dragon’s Den really?
Honestly my best educated guess is that the slack channel simply existed as a place for like-minded individuals to discuss topics and opinions they share an interest in.
After it was revealed to the public, the channel was opened to a number of interested/concerned community members to review including me. This was the first time I knew about or entered the channel. What I saw was pretty similar to the regular Slack. Bias against BU? Of course? Bias in favor of the core roadmap? Sure? An organized trolling campaign? Doubtful.
My guess is that the channel was similar before it became public.
Now it is possible that, as part of an elaborate ruse, participants in the channel have gone and created a new double secret channel where the real trolling is being organized and are still participating in the existing “Dragon’s Den” channel as some sort of theater to throw people off their trail and fool someone like me into posting this.
Maybe, maybe, maybe
But I doubt it. Occams Razor is a good explanation – the most likely explanation is that it simply people who are like-minded gathering together
Just as the most likely explanation for a lot of behavior in Bitcoin is the simple one.
I don't think Gavin is in the CIA or Roger is secretly trying to harm Bitcoin or Blockstream is involved in some conspiracy to destroy Bitcoin with AXA and I don't think Bitmain purposely intended to shut down miners (but the risk was still real) and I don't think Greg Maxwell works for the CIA either.
People have human faults, they mess up, they are self interested etc. Occasionally they will be behind some elaborate ruse, but usually behavior comes down to just people being people.
What about the trolling?
Again absence any evidence I think the simplest explanation is that like-minded people hanging around in the channel are likely to react in similar manners to various news and tweets.
It’s most likely like “Hey did you see this ridiculous argument John Doe just tweeted?" and then a number of like-minded people make comments on that post. Could this be considered organized trolling? Maybe. Same way posting a tweet on one or the other Reddit sub will cause a dozen people to comment...this seems like organized trolling.
Having been attacked, criticized and trolled by many of the same people who are very active in that channel I know how it feels: even half a dozen people can easily make you feel overwhelmed by attackers. Between misconceptions, logical fallacies, name-calling, retweets, reposts and comments for multiple people you can feel like Boromir in the first Lord of the Rings movie with arrow after arrow shot at you.
But really – this is just part of the way the Internet works.
I once even found myself banned from the entire Slack in question. I annoyed people with my continual calls for compromise as well as occasionally defending people from exactly the type of unfair or inaccurate attack I’m talking about here.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, I put my differences aside with the people at in the channel and since then have had a lot of productive and mutually respectful discussions about this important technology.
But core runs this!
This is the thing, they really don’t. I tried to get this point across in a recent blog post.
Down With Bitcoin Core (as a noun used to describe people)
https://medium.com/@brucefenton/down-with-bitcoin-core-as-a-noun-used-to-describe-people-9d76d4b3cbef
I know it’s frustrating, and I used to feel the same way as many BU supporters in thinking that “core” was one monolithic, like-minded entity. ** It’s really not. It's just not factual to look at it this way**
*Only after a lot of time spending a lot of time meeting with and discussing issues with numerous core and non-core developers did I come to this opinion. *
I now think that it is only fair for us to judge individual people on the individual actions that they take. Not actions taken by a group.
Worse yet: Some core developers even use this word “core” as a noun to describe people when it suits them. This is equally wrong. Individual people and only individual people should be held accountable for the actions that they actually taken the words that they actually say.
If we do that, it’s harder to argue.
Groups are easy to hate. It’s very easy to discuss to prescribe opinions or characteristics on “Republicans” or “liberals” or "core" or "btc". If you are running for office, it’s a great idea to use these types of terms: they seek to divide and drive wedges.
The world of politics is not that simple: on major issues ranging from the drug war to war, foreign policy and taxes there are vast differences between people who carry the various political labels.
An open source project, particularly one as diverse as Bitcoin, has much more nuance than this even.
There is definitely no universal “core” opinion.
“Core developers” include a wide variety of people: Gavin Andresen, Satoshi Nakamoto, Greg Maxwell, Matt Corallo, Alex Marcos, Peter Todd, Vladimir and many others.
It just isn’t accurate or fair to put all people in the same category.
What happens if we do start holding individual people accountable for their actions?
Well, for one thing, it makes it a lot harder to argue against broad ideas such as “core believes X” or “core failed to X”.
If someone claims that the “Dragon’s Den” is some sort of effort by “core”, then the first question should be “Who specifically do you mean by “core””? As far as I can tell the only contributor to the core software project was active in that particular channel is the moderator.
In fact, it does not seem likely that even more than a couple other actual core developers ever even visited the channel – – let alone used it or engaged in any sort of organized trolling behavior from it. How many core devs total on the high end even visited? Five?
So instead of saying "Dragons Den is a core project to organize trolling" why don't we say "these five people organize trolling"? Well, because it's too damn hard. It's EASY to blame some nameless faceless group, but when you name specific people you usually have to back it up better, so those five people accused would (rightfully) respond "Huh? What evidence do you have of this?"
Bram Cohen was caught in this exact situation. Just by being in this now infamous chat channel it was assumed he was a participant in trolling. Why? Because a guy said that the channel exists for trolling
If someone has visions of Vladimir or Greg Maxwell sitting around this particular Slack channel planning troll campaigns – – the facts and evidence simply don’t show this to be reflective of reality.
So what should we do next?
This argument isn’t going to be solved by one post.
But what we can all do is work together to discuss things in his fair and accurate of a way as possible.
This means holding actual people responsible for actual actions they do. If you don't like the core roadmap, debate it with Nullc, if you don't agree with the people who signed it, take it up with them. If you don't think the peer review process is fair and objective, contribute technically to the discussion. If you don't like the "Dragons Den" then take it up with specific people. What this really ends up looking like is that instead of being able to say "Dragons Den is a massive troll army run by core" it ends up more like "BTCDrak and MrHodl and Alp are in a channel and I don't like what they tweeted". That second statement doesn't have the bite of the first....but it's true.
Working for better standards also means we should really avoid claims about either "side" unless they are backed by evidence and relevant to the discussion.
In fact, we shouldn’t even be having “sides” at all.
We are here to change the world. No one likes the bickering. Many don't participate...but almost all of us support it at some point. Whether it's up-voting a divisive post, sharing a meme attacking the other guys or using terms designed to place people in camps, we contribute even when we don't mean to.
What would happen if we all decided to no longer participate in division? What if we down voted every comment that attacks individuals or which is divisive and we upvoted everything positive?
What if we kept scientific debate more scientific?
Every piece of data and information in this discussion should be analyzed independently. Independent of the source ended up dependent of what our own motivations or narrative might be.
Anytime we engage in using terms designed to “beat” the other side red division, we don’t win paragraph we win and Bitcoin wins by us all working together to be as accurate and fair as possible.
submitted by bruce_fenton to btc [link] [comments]

Coinbase Speaker Series: Gavin Andresen of Bitcoin Foundation Gavin Andresen about Bitcoin - YouTube Gavin Andresen about Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto Ты кто такой? Гевин Андресен  Gavin Andresen [ Clear Coin ... Triangulation 103: Gavin Andresen - YouTube

Bitcoin Core does not want to and does not make decisions on Bitcoin’s consensus rules. Gavin Andresen @gavinandresen - Mar 23 Might a small, well-tested patch that added a default-false option to disable block-size checks be accepted by Core? Matt Corallo if it a) took HF risks seriously and had protections for then and b) had community consensus to do a HF, sure! Gavin Andresen I’ll ... Bitcoin core developer Gavin Andresen has expressed regret in publishing his blog backing Craig Wright’s claim that he is, Satoshi Nakamoto. More specifically, Andresen claims it was a mistake to publish his post before the much-scrutinized post published by Craig Wright. Bitcoin Foundation chief scientist and core developer Gavin Andresen is one of the earliest known figures to have ... Gavin Andresen is an American computer scientist and software developer best known for his early contributions to bitcoin. Andresen took up the role of lead developer of bitcoin core after Satoshi ... Es geht los: Gavin Andresen, "Chief Scientist" der Bitcoin-Foundation, hat einen konkreten Vorschlag eingereicht, um die Größe der Blöcke am 1. Mai 2016 auf 20 Megabyte zu erhöhen. Die einen jubeln, dass damit die Lösung des immer drängenderen Scalability-Problems in Sichtweite kommt - und die anderen werfen Gavin Andresen vor, sich ... As the debate about the blocksize continues to roar through the Bitcoin community, Gavin Andresen joins us to take a step back and ask the big questions: How should these decisions be made in the first place? What does the governance of Bitcoin look like now and what do we want it to look like in the future? In a challenging time for Bitcoin, it's a critical discussion to have with the Chief ...

[index] [30247] [14344] [38460] [26286] [7725] [10669] [22297] [20500] [36556] [18668]

Coinbase Speaker Series: Gavin Andresen of Bitcoin Foundation

Coinbase Tech Talk Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation and member of the MIT Media Lab's Digital Currency Initiative Visit Coinbase: ht... #bitcoin #exmo #биткоин 💰 Конкурсы EXMO: https://bonus.exmo.ru/ 🔥 Наш LIVE канал: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_WMAJ ... Chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, Gavin Andresen is today's guest. Host: Leo Laporte Guest: Gavin Andresen Download or subscribe to this show at twi... Gavin Andresen, Principal of the BitCoin Virtual Currency Project, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about BitCoin, an innovative attempt to create a decentralized electronic currency. Gavin Andresen about Bitcoin (at Bitcoin conference in Amsterdam 2014)

#