Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA. Remember:
Bitcoin was always intended to be upgraded honestly, overtly, explicitly, and transparently - by hard forks as proposed by Satoshi - where you must explicitly "opt in" by deliberately upgrading your code.
Smart, honest devs fix bugs. Fiat-fueled AXA-funded Core/Blockstream devs add bugs - and then turn around and try to lie to our face and claim their bugs are somehow "features" Recently, people discovered bugs in other Bitcoin implementations - memory leaks in BU's software, "phone home" code in AntMiner's firmware. And the devs involved immediately took public responsibility, and fixed these bugs. Meanwhile...
AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize is still a (slow-motion but nonethless long-term fatal) bug, and
AXA-funded Blockstream's Anyone-Can-Spend SegWit hack/kludge is still a poison-pill.
People are so sick and tired of AXA-funded Blockstream's lies and sabotage that 40% of the network is already mining blocks using BU - because we know that BU will fix any bugs we find (but AXA-funded Blockstream will lie and cheat and try to force their bugs down everyone's throats).
So the difference is: BU's and AntMiner's devs possess enough social and economic intelligence to fix bugs in their code immediately when the community finds them. Meanwhile, most people in the community have been in an absolute uproar for years now against AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize and their deadly Anyone-Can-Spend hack/kludge/poison-pill. Of course, the home-schooled fiat-fattened sociopath Blockstream CTO One-Meg Greg u/nullc would probably just dismiss all these Bitcoin users as the "shreaking" [sic] masses. Narcissistic sociopaths like AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CTO Adam and their drooling delusional attack dog Luke-Jr (another person who was home-schooled - which may help explain why he's also such a tone-deaf anti-market sociopath) are just too stupid and arrogant to have the humility and the shame to shut the fuck up and listen to the users when everyone has been pointing out these massive lethal bugs in Core's shitty code. Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr, and Theymos are the most damaging people in Bitcoin These are the four main people who are (consciously or unconsciously) attempting to sabotage Bitcoin:
These toxic idiots are too stupid and shameless and sheltered - and too anti-social and anti-market - to even begin to recognize the lethal bugs they have been trying to introduce into Bitcoin's specification and our community. Users decide on specifications. Devs merely provide implementations. Guys like Greg think that they're important because they can do implemenation-level stuff (like avoiding memory leaks in C++ code). But they are total failures when it comes to specification-level stuff (ie, they are incapable of figuring out how to "grow" a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market by maximally leveraging available technology).
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/ Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos apparently lack the social and economic awareness and human decency to feel any guilt or shame for the massive damage they are attempting to inflict on Bitcoin - and on the world. Their ignorance is no excuse Any dev who is ignorant enough to attempt to propose adding such insidious bugs to Bitcoin needs to be rejected by the Bitcoin community - no matter how many years they keep on loudly insisting on trying to sabotage Bitcoin like this. The toxic influence and delusional lies of AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are directly to blame for the slow-motion disaster happening in Bitcoin right now - where Bitcoin's market cap has continued to fall from 100% towards 60% - and is continuing to drop.
When bitcoin drops below 50%, most of the capital will be in altcoins. All they had to do was increase the block size to 2mb as they promised. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
u/FormerlyEarlyAdopter : "I predict one thing. The moment Bitcoin hard-forks away from Core clowns, all the shit-coins out there will have a major sell-off." ... u/awemany : "Yes, I expect exactly the same. The Bitcoin dominance index will jump above 95% again."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yfcsw/uformerlyearlyadopter_i_predict_one_thing_the/ Market volume (ie, blocksize) should be decided by the market - not based on some arbitrary number that some ignorant dev pulled out of their ass For any healthy cryptocurrency, market price and market capitalization and market volume (a/k/a "blocksize") are determined by the market - not by any dev team, not by central bankers from AXA, not by economically ignorant devs like Adam and Greg (or that other useless idiot - Core "Lead Maintainer" Wladimir van der Laan), not by some drooling pathological delusional authoritarian freak like Luke-Jr, and not by some petty tyrant and internet squatter and communmity-destroyer like Theymos. The only way that Bitcoin can survive and prosper is if we, as a community, denounce and reject these pathological "centralized blocksize" control freaks like Adam and Greg and Luke and Theymos who are trying to use tricks like fiat and censorship and lies (in collusion with their army of trolls organized and unleashed by the Dragons Den) to impose their ignorance and insanity on our currency. These losers might be too ignorant and anti-social to even begin to understand the fact that they are attempting to sabotage Bitcoin. But their ignorance is no excuse. And Bitcoin is getting ready to move on and abandon these losers. There are many devs who are much better than Greg, Adam and Luke-Jr A memory leak is an implementation error, and a centrally planned blocksize is a specification error - and both types of errors will be avoided and removed by smart devs who listen to the community. There are plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in C++ - plus plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in other languages as well, such as:
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos are being exposed as miserable failures AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, their drooling attack dog Luke-Jr and their censor Theymos (and all the idiot small-blockheads, trolls, and shills who swallow the propaganda and lies cooked up in the Dragons Den) are being exposed more and more every day as miserable failures. Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos had the arrogance and the hubris to want to be "trusted" as "leaders". But Bitcoin is the world's first cryptocurrency - so it doesn't need trust, and it doesn't need leaders. It is decentralized and trustless. C++ devs should not be deciding Bitcoin's volume. The market should decide. It's not suprising that a guy like "One-Meg Greg" who adopts a nick like u/nullc (because he spends most of his life worrying about low-level details like how to avoid null pointer errors in C++ while the second-most-powerful fiat finance corporation in the world AXA is throwing tens of millions of dollars of fiat at his company to reward him for being a "useful idiot") has turned to be not very good at seeing the "big picture" of Bitcoin economics. So it also comes as no suprise that Greg Maxwell - who wanted to be the "leader" of Bitcoin - has turned out to be one of most harmful people in Bitcoin when it comes to things like growing a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market and economy. All the innovation and growth and discussion in cryptocurrencies is happening everywhere else - not at AXA-funded Blockstream and r\bitcoin (and the recently discovered Dragons Den, where they plan their destructive social engineering campaigns). Those are the censored centralized cesspools financed by central bankers and overrun by loser devs and the mindless trolls who follow them - and supported by inefficient miners who want to cripple Bitcoin with centrally planned blocksize (and dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit). Bitcoin is moving on to bigger blocks and much higher prices - leaving AXA-funded Blockstream's crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust Let them stagnate in their crippled shit-coin with its centrally planned, artificial, arbitrary 1MB 1.7MB blocksize, and SegWit's Anyone-Can-Spend hackkludge poison-pill. Bitcoin is moving on without these tyrants and liars and losers and sociopaths - and we're going to leave their crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust.
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
Did you know that LISK uses Schnorr signature-based Ed25519 scheme which is more secure, much faster, more scalable than secp256k1 which is used by Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stratis
Schnorr signatures have been praised by Bitcoin developers for a while Adam Back admitted it was more secure https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=511074.msg5727641#msg5727641 And it is much faster (scalable for verifying hundred thousands of transactions per second) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103172.0 DJB and friends claim that with their ed25519 curve (the "ed" is for Edwards) and careful implementation they can do batch verification of 70,000+ signatures per second on a cheap quad-core Intel Westmere chip, which is now several generations old. Given advances in CPUs over time, it seems likely that in the very near future the cited software will be capable of verifying many hundreds of thousands of signatures per second even if you keep the core count constant. But core counts are not constant - it seems likely that in 10 years or so 24-32 core chips will be standard even on consumer desktops. At that point a million signatures per second or more doesn't sound unreasonable. Gavin Andresen, the former Bitcoin Chief Scientist want to support it in Bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2jw5pm/im_gavin_andresen_chief_scientist_at_the_bitcoin/clfp3xj/ Bitcoin developers discussed to include it https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/212 However, it is still in wishlist https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork_wishlist Ed25519 is used in Tahoe-FS, one of most respected crypto project https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/2014/000069.html LISK is IoT friendly The good feature of Schnorr signature is that by design it does not require lot of computations on the signer side. Therefore, you can use it even on a computationally weak platform (think of a smart card or RFID), or on a platform with no hardware support for multiple precision arithmetic. Advantages of Schnorr signatures According to David Harding, Schnorr signatures can bring many benefits Smaller multisig transactions Slightly smaller for all transactions Plausible deniability for multisig Plausible deniability of authorized parties using a third-party organizer (which doesn't need to be trusted with private keys), it's possible to prevent signers from knowing whether their private key is part of the set of signing keys. Theoretical better security properties: Also, the ed25519 page linked above describes several ways it is resistant to side-channel attacks, which can allow hardware wallets to operate safely in less secure environments. Faster signature verification: it likely takes fewer CPU cycles to verify an ed25519 Schnorr signature than a secp256k1 ECDSA signature. Multi-crypto multisig: with two (slightly) different cryptosystems to choose from, high-security users can create 2-of-2 multisig pubkey scripts that require both ECDSA and Schnorr signatures, so their bitcoins can't be stolen if only one cryptosystem is broken. https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/34288/what-are-the-implications-of-schnorr-signatures Scalable multisig transactions The magic of Schnorr signatures is most evident in their ability to aggregate signatures from multiple inputs into a single one to be validated for every individual transactions. The scaling implications of this are obvious: aggregation allows for non-trivial savings in terms of transmission, validation & storage for every peer on the network. The chart below illustrates the historical impact a switch to Schnorr signatures would have had in terms of space savings on the blockchain. (Alex B.) Infamous malleability is non-issue in LISK Provably no inherent signature malleability, while ECDSA has a known malleability, and lacks a proof that no other forms exist. Note that Witness Segregation already makes signature malleability not result in transaction malleability, however. https://www.elementsproject.org/elements/schnorr-signatures/ Bitcoin has malleability bugs
My draft for a new /r/btc FAQ explaining the split from /r/Bitcoin to new users
If /btc is going to actually compete with /Bitcoin, it needs to be just as friendly and informative to new users, especially given its position as the “non default” or “breakaway” sub. The current /btc sticky saying "Welcome to the Wiki" doesn't even have any content in it and I feel this is a bit of a wasted opportunity to create an informative resource that new users will see by default and everyone else can link to instead of retyping things over and over about the history and difference between the subs. Here's what I've written as a starting point. I've done my best to keep it as concise and relevant as possible but in all honesty it is a complicated issue and a short but effective explanation is basically impossible. I hope the community can expand/improve on it further. Quick bit about me I got into Bitcoin in October 2013, when /Bitcoin had around 40k subscribers if I remember correctly, so by now I've actually personally experienced a large portion of Bitcoin's history - including the events preceding and since the creation of this sub. I have been an active and popular poster on /Bitcoin for almost all of that time, until the split and my subsequent banning. With the recent censorship fiasco, I'm finding I have to reiterate the same points over and over again to explain to newer users what happened with the /Bitcoin vs /btc split, questions about hard forks, what is likely to happen in the future and so on. So I put a couple of hours into writing this post to save myself the trouble in future.
There is a TL:DR; at the bottom, but it is exactly that. If you skip straight to the TL:DR; then don’t expect sympathy when you post questions that have already been covered in the lengthy and detailed main post.
New to Bitcoin?
I am totally new to Bitcoin. What is it? How does it work? Can/should I mine any? Where can I buy some? How do I get more information? All of these questions are actually really well covered in the /Bitcoin FAQ. Check it out in a new tab here. Once you've got a bit of a handle on the technology as a whole, come back here for the rest of the story.
What's the difference between /btc and /Bitcoin? What happened to create two such strongly opposed communities? Why can't I discuss /btc in /Bitcoin? Historically, the /Bitcoin subreddit was the largest and most active forum for discussing Bitcoin. As Bitcoin grew close to a cap in the number of transactions it could process, known as the 1MB block size limit, the community had differing opinions on the best way to proceed. Note that this upcoming issue was anticipated well ahead of time, with Satoshi's chosen successor to lead the project Gavin Andresen posting about it in mid 2015. Originally, there was quite a broad spread of opinions - some people favoured raising the blocksize to various extents, some people favoured implementing a variety of second layer solutions to Bitcoin, probably most people thought both could be a good idea in one form or another. This topic was unbelievably popular at the time, taking up almost every spot on the front page of /Bitcoin for weeks on end. Unfortunately, the head moderator of /Bitcoin - theymos - felt strongly enough about the issue to use his influence to manipulate the debate. His support was for the proposal of existing software (called Bitcoin Core) NOT to raise the blocksize limit past 1MB and instead rely totally on second layer solutions - especially one called Segregated Witness (or SegWit). With some incredibly convoluted logic, he decided that any different implementations of Bitcoin that could potentially raise the limit were effectively equivalent to separate cryptocurrencies like Litecoin or Ethereum and thus the block size limit or implement other scaling solutions were off-topic and ban-worthy. At the time the most popular alternative was called Bitcoin XT and was supported by experienced developers Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, who have since bothleft Bitcoin Core development in frustration at their marginalisation. Theymos claimed that for Bitcoin XT or any other software implementation to be relevant to /Bitcoin required "consensus", which was never well defined, despite it being seemingly impossible for everyone to agree on the merits of a new project if no one was allowed to discuss it in the first place. Anyone who didn't toe the line of his vaguely defined moderation policy was temporarily or permanently banned. There was also manipulation of the community using the following tactics - which can still be seen today:
Default thread sorting changed to "controversial" in selected threads instead of "best" like nearly every other subreddit
Comment/upvote scores hidden by default (combined with the previous point this prevented theymos and other unpopular mods like StarMaged and BashCo from ending up at the bottom of every thread they posted in)
The implementation of a custom CSS sheet that disguises long threads of [removed] comments. This was especially effective at the time as the censorship was obvious since threads were becoming wastelands of hundreds of deleted comments, similar to other Reddit throw downs like GamerGate
This created enormous uproar among users, as even many of those in favour of Bitcoin Core thought it was authoritarian to actively suppress this crucial debate. theymos would receive hundreds of downvotes whenever he posted: for example here where he gets -749 for threatening to ban prominent Bitcoin business Coinbase from the subreddit. In an extraordinary turn of events, Theymos posted a thread which received only 26% upvotes in a sample size of thousands announcing that he did not care if even 90% of users disagreed with his policy, he would not change his opinion or his moderation policy to facilitate the discussion the community wanted to have. His suggested alternative was instead for those users, however many there were, to leave. Here are Theymos' exact words, as he describes how he intends to continue moderating Bitcoin according to his own personal rules rather than the demands of the vast majority of users, who according to him clearly don't have any "real arguments" or "any brains".
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /Bitcoin , and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely. If 90% of /Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. Both /Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /Bitcoin to actually do so so that /Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
/btc was therefore born in an environment not of voluntary departure but of forced exile. This forced migration caused two very unfortunate occurrences:
It polarised the debate around Bitcoin scaling. Previously, there was a lot of civil discussion about compromise and people with suggestions from all along the spectrum were working to find the best solution. That was no longer possible when a moderation policy would actively suppress anyone with opinions too different from Theymos. Instead it forced everyone into a "with us or against us" situation, which is why the /btc subreddit has been pushed so far in favour of the idea of a network hard fork (discussed below).
It has distracted Bitcoin from its mission of becoming a useful, global, neutral currency into a war of information. New users often find /Bitcoin and assume it to be the authoritative source of information, only to later discover that a lot of important information or debate has been invisibly removed from their view.
Since then, like any entrenched conflict, things have degenerated somewhat on both sides to name calling and strawman arguments. However, /btc remains committed to permitting free and open debate on all topics and allowing user downvotes to manage any "trolling" (as /Bitcoin used to) instead of automatic shadow-banning or heavy-handed moderator comment deletion (as /Bitcoin does now). Many users in /Bitcoin deny that censorship exists at all (it is difficult to see when anyone pointing out the censorship has their comment automatically hidden by the automoderator) or justify it as necessary removal of "trolls", which at this point now includes thousands upon thousands of current and often long-standing Bitcoin users and community members. Ongoing censorship is still rampant, partially documented in this post by John Blocke For another detailed account of this historical sequence of events, see singularity87 s posts here and here. /btc has a public moderator log as demonstration of its commitment to transparency and the limited use of moderation. /Bitcoin does not. Why is so much of the discussion in /btc about the censorship in /Bitcoin? Isn't a better solution to create a better community rather than constantly complaining? There are two answers to this question.
Over time, as /btc grows, conversation will gradually start to incorporate more information about the Bitcoin ecosystem, technology, price etc. Users are encouraged to aid this process by submitting links to relevant articles and up/downvoting on the /new and /rising tab as appropriate. However, /btc was founded effectively as a refuge for confused and angry users banned from /Bitcoin and it still needs to serve that function so at least some discussion of the censorship will probably always persist (unless there is a sudden change of moderation policy in /Bitcoin).
The single largest issue in Bitcoin right now is the current cap on the number of transactions the network can process, known as the blocksize limit. Due to the censorship in /Bitcoin, open debate of the merits of different methods of addressing this problem is impossible. As a result, the censorship of /Bitcoin (historically the most active and important Bitcoin community forum) has become by proxy the single most important topic in Bitcoin, since only by returning to open discussion would there be any hope of reaching agreement on the solution to the block size limit itself. As a topic of such central importance, there is naturally going to be a lot of threads about this until a solution is found. This is simply how Bitcoin works, that at any one time there is one key issue under discussion for lengthy periods of time (previous examples of community "hot topics" include the demise of the original Bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, the rise to a 51% majority hash rate of mining pool GHash.io and the supposed "unveiling" of Bitcoin's anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto).
Bitcoin Network Hard Forks
What is a hard fork? What happens if Bitcoin hard forks? A network hard fork is when a new block of transactions is published under a new set of rules that only some of the network will accept. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain history of transactions to two separate blockchains of the current state of the network. With any luck, the economic incentive for all users to converge quickly brings everyone together on one side of the fork, but this is not guaranteed especially since there is not a lot of historical precedent for such an event. A hard fork is necessary to raise the block size limit above its 1MB cap. Why is /btc generally in favour of a hard fork and /Bitcoin generally against? According to a lot of users on /Bitcoin - a hard fork can be characterised as an “attack” on the network. The confusion and bad press surrounding a hard fork would likely damage Bitcoin’s price and/or reputation (especially in the short term). They point to the ongoing turmoil with Ethereum as an example of the dangers of a hard fork. Most of /Bitcoin sees the stance of /btc as actively reckless, that pushing for a hard fork creates the following problems:
The possibility of an irrevocable community divergence, as has happened in Ethereum (discussed below)
The chance of introducing new code bugs by forcing a network update without totally comprehensive software developer review
The possibility of reducing decentralisation in the network as higher hardware requirements puts greater strain on network nodes and miners
According to a lot of users on /btc - a hard fork is necessary despite these risks. Most of /btc sees the stance of /Bitcoin as passively reckless, that continuing to limit Bitcoin’s blocksize while remaining inactive creates the following problems:
Transaction fees are continuously rising as transactions compete for the limited space in each block
Confirmation times for any given transaction are also increasing, especially ones without a rapidly escalating fee attached
Fee and confirmation times is making BItcoin hostile to new users, who are confused by their difficulties with this “revolutionary” new technology
Restricting Bitcoin’s growth increases the likelihood it will be overtaken by another unrestricted cryptocurrency
Passively validating the stance of /Bitcoin to continue censoring the debate about this important issue
Bitcoiners are encouraged to examine all of the information and reach their own conclusion. However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is anopen-source projectfounded on the ideal offree market competition (between any/all software projects, currencies, monetary policies, miners, ideas etc.). In one sense, /btc vs /Bitcoin is just another extension of this, although Bitcoiners are also encouraged to keep abreast of the top posts and links on both subreddits. Only those afraid of the truth need to cut off opposing information. What do Bitcoin developers, businesses, users, miners, nodes etc. think? Developers There are developers on both sides of the debate, although it is a common argument in /Bitcoin to claim that the majority supports Bitcoin Core. This is true in the sense that Bitcoin Core is the current default and has 421 listed code contributors but misleading because not only are many of those contributors authors of a single tiny change and nothing else but also many major figures like Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik have left the project while still being counted as historical contributors. Businesses including exchanges etc. A definite vote of confidence is not available from the vast majority of Bitcoin businesses, and wouldn't be binding in any case. The smart decision for most businesses is to support both chains in the event of a fork until the network resolves the issue (which may only be a day or two). Users Exact user sentiment is impossible to determine, especially given the censorship on /Bitcoin. Miners and Nodes Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network. Node Support Information Miner Support Information What do I do if the network hard forks?* Do we end up with two Bitcoins? Firstly, in the event of a hard fork there is no need to panic. All Bitcoins are copied to both chains in the case of a split, so any Bitcoins you have are safe. HOWEVER, in the event of a fork there will be some period of confusion where it is important to be very careful about how/why you spend your Bitcoins. Hopefully (and most likely) this would not last long - everyone in Bitcoin is motivated to converge into agreement for everyone's benefit as soon as possible - but it's impossible to say for sure. There isn't a lot of historical data about cryptocurrency hard forks, but one example is alternative cryptocurrency Ethereum that forked into two coins after the events of the DAO and currently exists as two separate chains, ETH (Ethereum) and ETC (Ethereum Classic). The Ethereum fork is not a good analogy for Bitcoin because its network difficulty target adjusts every single block, so a massive drop in hash rate does not significantly impede its functioning. Bitcoin’s difficult target adjusts only every 2100 blocks - which under usual circumstances takes two weeks but in the event of a hard fork could be a month or more for the smaller chain. It is almost inconceivable that a minority of miners would willingly spend millions of dollars over a month or more purely on principle to maintain a chain that was less secure and processed transactions far slower than the majority chain - even assuming the Bitcoins on this handicapped chain didn't suffer a market crash to close to worthless. Secondly, a hard fork is less likely to be a traumatic event than it is often portrayed in /Bitcoin:
The Bitcoin Core and /Bitcoin stated policy is to avoid a hard fork at all costs. So there is no risk of a hard fork on that side.
The Bitcoin XT/Classic/Unlimited and /btc side is prepared for a hard fork if necessary, but it will only come to pass if a clear majority of miners (and presumably users, although that's harder to determine) are already signalling that they would be onboard. There is no exact threshold value, but no miner is going to risk publishing a block larger than 1MB until they are very confident the network will follow them.
What Happens Now
How do I check on the current status of opinion? Coin.dance hosts some excellent graphical representations of the current opinion on the network. Node Support Information Miner Support Information Users are also welcome to engage in anecdotal speculation about community opinion based on their impression of the commentary and activity in /btc and /Bitcoin. Haven't past attempts to raise the blocksize failed? There is no time limit or statute of limitations on the number of attempts the community can make to increase the block size and scale Bitcoin. Almost any innovation in the history of mankind required several attempts to get working and this is no different. The initial attempt called Bitcoin XT never got enough support for a fork because key developer Mike Hearn left out of frustration at trying to talk around all the censorship and community blockading. The second major attempt called Bitcoin Classic gained massive community momentum until it was suddenly halted by the drastic implementation of censorship by Theymos described above. The most popular attempt at the moment is called Bitcoin Unlimited. /btc is neutral and welcoming to any and all projects that want to find a solution to scaling Bitcoin - either on-or off-chain. However, many users are suspicious of Bitcoin Core's approach that involves only SegWit, developed by a private corporation called Blockstream and that has already broken its previous promises in a document known as the Hong Kong Agreement to give the network a block size limit raise client along with Segregated Witness (only the latter was delivered) . What if the stalemate is irreconcilable and nothing ever happens? Increasing transaction fees and confirmation times are constantly increasing the pressure to find a scaling solution - leading some to believe that further adoption of Bitcoin Unlimited or a successor scaling client will eventually occur. Bitcoin Core's proposed addition of SegWit is struggling to gain significant support and as it is already the default client (and not censored in /Bitcoin) it is unlikely to suddenly grow any further. If the stalemate is truly irreconcilable, eventually users frustrated by the cost, time and difficulty of Bitcoin will begin migrating to alternative cryptocurrencies. This is obviously not a desirable outcome for long standing Bitcoin supporters and holders, but cannot be ignored as the inevitable free market resort if Bitcoin remains deadlocked for long enough.
Bitcoin is at its transaction capacity and needs to scale to onboard more users
The community was discussing different ways to do this until the biased head moderator of /BitcoinTheymos got involved
Theymos, started an authoritarian censorship rampage which culminated in telling 90% of /Bitcoin users to leave. /btc is where they went. Here is the thread where it all started. Note the 26% upvoted on the original post, the hundreds of upvotes of community outcry in the comments and the graveyard of [removed] posts further down the chain. Highly recommended reading in its entirety.
To this day, /Bitcoin bans all discussion of alternative scaling proposals and /btc
Bitcoin is about freedom, and can’t function effectively with either an artificially restricted transaction cap or a main community forum that is so heavily manipulated. This subreddit is the search for solutions to both problems as well as general Bitcoin discussion.
Debate continues in /btc, and generally doesn't continue in /Bitcoin - although posts referencing /btc or Bitcoin Unlimited regularly sneak past the moderators because it is such a crucial topic
Eventually one side or the other breaks, enough miners/nodes/users get on one side and Bitcoin starts scaling. This may or may not involve a hard fork.
If not, fees and average confirmation times continue to rise until users migrate en masse to an altcoin. This is not an imminent danger, as can be seen by the BTC marketcap dominance at its historical levels of 80+% but could change at any time
DJB and friends claim that with their ed25519 curve (the "ed" is for Edwards) and careful implementation they can do batch verification of 70,000+ signatures per second on a cheap quad-core Intel Westmere chip, which is now several generations old. Given advances in CPUs over time, it seems likely that in the very near future the cited software will be capable of verifying many hundreds of thousands of signatures per second even if you keep the core count constant. But core counts are not constant - it seems likely that in 10 years or so 24-32 core chips will be standard even on consumer desktops. At that point a million signatures per second or more doesn't sound unreasonable.
The good feature of Schnorr signature is that by design it does not require lot of computations on the signer side. Therefore, you can use it even on a computationally weak platform (think of a smart card or RFID), or on a platform with no hardware support for multiple precision arithmetic.
Advantages of Schnorr signatures According to David Harding, Schnorr signatures can bring many benefits
Smaller multisig transactions
Slightly smaller for all transactions
Plausible deniability for multisig
Plausible deniability of authorized parties using a third-party organizer (which doesn't need to be trusted with private keys), it's possible to prevent signers from knowing whether their private key is part of the set of signing keys.
Theoretical better security properties: Also, the ed25519 page linked above describes several ways it is resistant to side-channel attacks, which can allow hardware wallets to operate safely in less secure environments.
Faster signature verification: it likely takes fewer CPU cycles to verify an ed25519 Schnorr signature than a secp256k1 ECDSA signature.
Multi-crypto multisig: with two (slightly) different cryptosystems to choose from, high-security users can create 2-of-2 multisig pubkey scripts that require both ECDSA and Schnorr signatures, so their bitcoins can't be stolen if only one cryptosystem is broken.
The magic of Schnorr signatures is most evident in their ability to aggregate signatures from multiple inputs into a single one to be validated for every individual transactions. The scaling implications of this are obvious: aggregation allows for non-trivial savings in terms of transmission, validation & storage for every peer on the network. The chart below illustrates the historical impact a switch to Schnorr signatures would have had in terms of space savings on the blockchain. (Alex B.)
Infamous malleability is non-issue in LISK
Provably no inherent signature malleability, while ECDSA has a known malleability, and lacks a proof that no other forms exist. Note that Witness Segregation already makes signature malleability not result in transaction malleability, however. https://www.elementsproject.org/elements/schnorr-signatures/
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took *longer* than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened *faster* than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
Centralization is a double-edged sword. So far, centralization (and intertia, and laziness, and caution) has been favoring Blockstream. But if and when a congestion crisis comes, then the tide is gonna turn pretty quickly - and Blockstream's monopoly in terms of "code running on the network" is gonna evaporate quicker than anyone expected. How will this happen? Like this: Bitcoin is going to go into a crisis - not just the current agonizing slow-motion swamp of centralized fascist governance, but a real-time honking red alert involving a clogged-up network, with people freaking out screaming from the rooftops that millions of dollars in transactions are in limbo due to some pointless fucked-up 1 MB "blocksize limit". And at that point, people are going to get rid of the damn piece of broken cripple-code, immediately. End of story. Slow to crumble, fast to collapse Up till now, the Bitcoin governance crisis has been like slowly sinking into a swamp of quicksand. But once a real-time congestion crisis actually hits (and online forums become dominated by posts screaming "my transaction is stuck in limbo!!!"), then all the previous bullshit and bloviating from economic idiots about "fee markets" and "soft hard forks" or whatever other nonsense will be instantly forgotten. And at that point, there will be only 2 things that can happen:
Either Bitcoin dies, and $7 billion dollars in investor wealth evaporates into thin air; or
The simplest and safest "good enough" on-chain scaling upgrade gets rolled out ASAP - ie, we will get bigger blocks so fast it will make your head spin.
You don't need Blockstream - they need you When push comes to shove, people are going to remember pretty damn quick that open-source code is easy to patch. People are going to remember that you don't have to fly to meetings in Hong Kong or on some secret Caribbean island ... or post on Reddit for hours ... or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on devs ... in order to simply change a constant in your code from 1000000 to 2000000. Eventually, we are going to remember what vote-with-your-CPU consensus looks like Remember all those hours you wasted on reddit? Remember all that time you wasted in some hidden downvoted sub-thread debating with some snarky little toxic troll who'd wandered over from a censored Milgram experiment forum full of brainwashed circlejerkers and foot-stomping fascists whose only adrenaline rush and power trip in life had evidently been when they would run around bloviating gibberish like "fee markets!" or "Austrian!" to the self-selected bunch of ignorant submissive sycophants who hadn't been banned from r\bitcoin yet? Well, when the real crisis hits, all that trivial online drama isn't going to matter any more. When the inevitable congestion crisis finally comes, it's only going to take a couple of mining pools plus a couple of exchanges to make a simple life-or-death business decision to un-install Blockstream's artificially crippled code and instead install code that has actually been upgraded to deal with the reality of mining and the marketplace - and then we're all going to see what actual vote-with-your-CPU consensus really looks like (instead of vote-with-your-sockpuppet pseudo-consensus on Reddit). This upgraded code could be Classic, or Unlimited, or even a modded version Core - it doesn't really matter. Code is code and money is money, and when push comes to shove, investors and miners aren't going to give a damn what some overpaid economic idiot from Blockstream said at some meeting in Hong Kong once, or what some fascist poisonous astroturfing shill-bot posted a million times on Reddit. Things usually move slow in Bitcoin-land - except when they move fast For an example of how fast the tide can turn, just look at a couple of major events from the past two days: (1) Coinbase is suddenly saying that:
Bitcoin looks a lot like hard-to-use antiquated assembly code - and Ethereum looks like an easy-to-use modern programming language;
Blockstream with its toxic, opaque and oppressive culture is scaring away all the new devs - who are flocking to alt-coins like Ethereum which has a healthy, transparent and welcoming culture.
Of course the good devs are flocking to Ethereum now. Any smart dev can see from a mile away that it would be suicide to try to contribute to Core/Blockstream - Blockstream don't want any new coders or new ideas, they are insular and insecure and they feel downright threatened by new coders with fresh ideas. They've shown this over and over again, eg:
when they repeatedly freaked out and went nuclear and refused to compromise whenever any dev made a simple safe scaling proposal, like 20 MB blocks, or 8 MB blocks, or 4 MB blocks, or 2 MB blocks, or Adaptive Blocks, etc etc.
scaring all the good devs and a lot of investors into alt-coins.
Blockstream has backed themselves into a corner At this point, people are starting to realize that Blockstream is a led by desperate and incompetent dead-enders. (There are some great coders over there such as Pieter Wuille - and Greg Maxwell is also a great Bitcoin coder, but he is toxic as a "leader".) Blockstream can't do capacity planning, they can't do threat assessment, they can't innovate, they can't prioritize, and they can't communicate. In the end, they're only destroying themselves - by censoring debate, and ostracizing existing innovators (eg, Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen) - and scaring away potential new innovators. Remember, Blockstream != Bitcoin It's important to remember that Blockstream cannot destroy Bitcoin - any more than Mt Gox could. Once Blockstream is thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Bitcoin community and the media, as "the company that almost strangled the Bitcoin network by trying to force blocks to be smaller than the average web page" - it's gonna be time for honey-badger jokes all over again. Blockstream's gargantuan conflicts-of-interest will be their downfall Blockstream is funded by insurance giant AXA - a company whose CEO is the head of the friggin' Bilderberg Group. (He's scheduled to move from CEO of AXA to CEO of HSBC soon. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.) AXA doesn't even want cryptocurrency to succeed anyways, because half of the 1 trillion dollars of so-called "assets" on their fraudulent balance sheet is actually nothing more than toxic debt-backed worthless derivatives garbage. (AXA has more derivatives than any other insurance company.) In other words, AXA's balance sheet will be exposed as worthless and the company will become insolvent (just like Lehman Brothers and AIG did in 2008) once real money like Bitcoin actually becomes dominant in the world economy - which will "uber" and knock down the whole teetering $1.2 quadrillion derivatives casino. Hmm... AIG... a giant insurance group whose alleged "assets" turned out to be just a worthless pile of toxic debt-backed derivatives on the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat, AIG who triggered the 2008 financial near-meltdown... Who does AIG remind me of... Oh yeah AXA... So let's put AXA in charge of paying for Bitcoin development! What could possibly go wrong?!? Blockstream's owners HATE Bitcoin Never forget:
This is the probably the most gigantic CONFLICT OF INTEREST in the history of economics. And it's something to think about, as we sit here wondering for years why Blockstream is not only failing to scale Bitcoin - but it's also actively trying to SABOTAGE anyone ELSE who tries to scale Bitcoin as well. So, be patient - and optimistic Viewed from one perspective, the fact that this blocksize battle has dragged on for years can be very depressing. But, viewed from another perspective, the fact that it's still going on is positive - because, for example, nobody really dares to say anymore that "blocks should be 1 MB" - since repeated studies have shown that the current hardware and infrastructure could easily handle 3-4 MB blocks, and Core/Blockstream's own precious SegWit soft-fork is going to need 3-4 MB blocks anyways. Plus, the only "strengths" that Blockstream had on its side actually turn out to be pretty weak upon closer scrutiny (money from investors like AXA who hate cryptocurrency, censorship from domain squatters who only know how to destroy communities, snark from sockpuppets who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag on uncensored forums). In fact, if you were part of Blockstream, you'd be pretty demoralized that a rag-tag bunch of big-blocks supporters has been chipping away at you for the past few years, creating new forums, creating new coins, creating new products and services, exposing the economic ignorance of small-block dead-enders - and all the while, Blockstream hasn't been able to deliver on any of its so-called scaling roadmap. If it hadn't been for a few historical accidents (cheap energy behind the Great Firewall of China, plus the other "linguistic" firewall that has prevented many people in the Chinese-speaking community from seeing how much of the community actually rejects Blockstream, plus the other accidental fact that bigger blocks involve generalizing Bitcoin, which mathematically happens to require a hard fork), then Blockstream would not have been able to control Bitcoin development as long as it has. Yeah, they have done routine maintenance stuff and efficiency upgrades, like rewriting libsecp256k, which is great, and much appreciated - and Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork) - but the network also needs some simple, safe scaling. And the network is going to get simple, safe scaling - whenever it decides that it really, really wants it. And there's nothing that Blockstream can do to block that.
Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (562 points, 262 comments)
I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (401 points, 166 comments)
You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1420 points, 433 comments)
2025 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
2018 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
1215 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
1211 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
Since this is a pressing and prevalent issue, I thought maybe condensing the essential arguments into one mega thread is better than rehashing everything in new threads all the time. I chose a FAQ format for this so a certain statement can be answered. I don't want to re-post everything here so where appropriate I'm just going to use links. Disclaimer: This is biased towards big blocks (BIP 101 in particular) but still tries to mention the risks, worries and fears. I think this is fair because all other major bitcoin discussion places severely censor and discourage big block discussion.
What is the block size limit?
The block size limit was introduced by Satoshi back in 2010-07-15 as an anti-DoS measure (though this was not stated in the commit message, more info here). Ever since, it has never been touched because historically there was no need and raising the block size limit requires a hard fork. The block size directly limits the number of transactions in a block. Therefore, the capacity of Bitcoin is directly limited by the block size limit.
Why does a raise require a hard fork?
Because larger blocks are seen as invalid by old nodes, a block size increase would fork these nodes off the network. Therefore it is a hard fork. However, it is possible to downsize the block limit with a soft fork since smaller blocks would still be seen as valid from old nodes. It is considerably easier to roll out a soft fork. Therefore, it makes sense to roll out a more ambitious hard fork limit and downsize as needed with soft forks if problems arise.
What is the deal with soft and hard forks anyways?
It is the Chicken and Egg problem applied to future growth of Bitcoin. If companies do not see how Bitcoin can scale long term, they don't invest which in turn slows down adoption and development. See here and here.
Does an increase in block size limit mean that blocks immediately get larger to the point of the new block size limit?
No, blocks are as large as there is demand for transactions on the network. But one can assume that if the limit is lifted, more users and businesses will want to use the blockchain. This means that blocks will get bigger, but they will not automatically jump to the size of the block size limit. Increased usage of the blockchain also means increased adoption, investment and also price appreciation.
Which are the block size increase proposals?
See here. It should be noted that BIP 101 is the only proposal which has been implemented and is ready to go.
What is the long term vision of BIP 101?
BIP 101 tries to be as close to hardware limitations regarding bandwidth as possible so that nodes can continue running at normal home-user grade internet connections to keep the decentralized aspect of Bitcoin alive. It is believed that it is hard to increase the block size limit, so a long term increase is beneficial to planning and investment in the Bitcoin network. Go to this article for further reading and understand what is meant by "designing for success". BIP 101 vs actual transaction growth visualized: http://imgur.com/QoTEOO2 Note that the actual growth in BIP 101 is piece-wise linear and does not grow in steps as suggested in the picture.
What is up with the moderation and censorship on bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /bitcoin?
Proponents of a more conservative approach fear that a block size increase proposal that does not have "developeexpert consensus" should not be implemented via a majority hard fork. Therefore, discussion about the full node clients which implement BIP 101 is not allowed. Since the same individuals have major influence of all the three bitcoin websites (most notably theymos), discussion of Bitcoin XT is censored and/or discouraged on these websites.
Who governs or controls Bitcoin Core anyways? Who governs Bitcoin XT? What is Bitcoin governance?
Bitcoin Core is governed by a consensus mechanism. How it actually works is not clear. It seems that any major developer can "veto" a change. However, there is one head maintainer who pushes releases and otherwise organizes the development effort. It should be noted that the majority of the main contributors to Bitcoin Core are Blockstream employees. BitcoinXT follows a benevolent dictator model (as Bitcoin used to follow when Satoshi and later Gavin Andresen were the lead maintainers). It is a widespread believe that Bitcoin can be separated into protocol and full node development. This means that there can be multiple implementations of Bitcoin that all follow the same protocol and overall consensus mechanism. More reading here. By having multiple implementations of Bitcoin, single Bitcoin implementations can be run following a benevolent dictator model while protocol development would follow an overall consensus model (which is enforced by Bitcoin's fundamental design through full nodes and miners' hash power). It is still unclear how protocol changes should actually be governed in such a model. Bitcoin governance is a research topic and evolving.
What are the arguments against a significant block size increase and against BIP 101 in particular?
The main arguments against a significant increase are related to decentralization and therefore robustness against commercial interests and government regulation and intervention. More here (warning: biased Wiki article). Another main argument is that Bitcoin needs a fee market established by a low block size limit to support miners long term. There is significant evidence and game theory to doubt this claim, as can be seen here. Finally, block propagation and verification times increase with an increased block size. This in turn increases the orphan rate of miners which means reduced profit. Some believe that this is a disadvantage to small miners because they are not as well connected to other big miners. Also, there is currently a large miner centralization in China. Since most of these miners are behind the Great Firewall of China, their bandwidth to the rest of the world is limited. There is a fear that larger block propagation times favor Chinese miners as long as they have a mining majority. However, there are solutions in development that can drastically reduce block propagation times so this problem will be less of an issue long term.
What is up with the fee market and what is the Lightning Network (LN)?
Major Bitcoin Core developers believe that a fee market established by a low block size is needed for future security of the bitcoin network. While many believe fundamentally this is true, there is major dispute if a fee market needs to be forced by a low block size. One of the main LN developers thinks such a fee market through low block size is needed (read here). The Lightning Network is a non-bandwidth scaling solution. It uses payment channels that can be opened and closed using Bitcoin transactions that are settled on the blockchain. By routing transactions through many of these payment channels, in theory it is possible to support a lot more transactions while a user only needs very few payment channels and therefore rarely has to use (settle on) the actual blockchain. More info here.
How does LN and other non-bandwidth scaling solutions relate to Bitcoin Core and its long term scaling vision?
Bitcoin Core is headed towards a future where block sizes are kept low so that a fee market is established long term that secures miner incentives. The main scaling solution propagated by Core is LN and other solutions that only sometimes settle transactions on the main Bitcoin blockchain. Essentially, Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer for solutions that are built on top of Bitcoin's core technology. Many believe that long term this might be inevitable. But forcing this off-chain development already today seems counterproductive to Bitcoin's much needed growth and adoption phase before such solutions can thrive. It should also be noted that no major non-bandwidth scaling solution (such as LN) has been tested or even implemented. It is not even clear if such off-chain solutions are needed long term scaling solutions as it might be possible to scale Bitcoin itself to handle all needed transaction volumes. Some believe that the focus on a forced fee market by major Bitcoin Core developers represents a conflict of interest since their employer is interested in pushing off-chain scaling solutions such as LN (more reading here).
Are there solutions in development that show the block sizes as proposed via BIP 101 are viable and block propagation times in particular are low enough?
Running a full node worth it? (plus, a bonus question)
I was curious about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies just because I just really don't like banks. So, after reading a couple of articles [1 and 2] on how the number of full nodes has been declining, I decided to put my old laptop to use and host a full node. It's always on anyway (electricity bill is included in the value of the rent) and I got decent bandwidth (I pay extra to have unlimited download/upload, at 30mbps), so I installed bitcoincore and bitcoinqt last week. Almost 40gb later, I'm up and running. Then after reading gavin andresen's answer to this reddit post, I'm now wondering if I'm actually part of the problem or of the solution. Specifically:
I have a shitty old laptop running a very bare bones linux server (to make the most out of the dated hardware). Gavin's TL;DR: "if you've got an extra virtual machine with enough memory in a data center, then yes, please, run a full node". WELL I got an Intel Atom n450 powered netbook with 1Gb (yes, one whole gigabyte's worth!) of RAM. How's hardware performance relevant, exactly? I'm not in this to mine anything, I just want to keep the network alive so more people can avoid dealing with stupid, thieving banks.
I synced everything through the client (should have downloaded the chain through bittorrent; took me 5 days through the client!). I opened port 8333 on my router. How can I tell if I have more than 8 connections going on? What does this mean: "if you have only 8 then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution"? Is this answer accurate? If so, I don't need to be doing anything else, right? Again, how do I check? Edit: checked, 22 connections right now; is this good enough?
And for the bonus question:
Suppose I have a blog and I had a public btc address listed there so people could send a few bits my way. I read that we should always only use one address once; in order to receive another payment, we should generate and provide a new address. What gives? Do people have scripts to generate new addresses and update them on their websites every time they receive a payment? Do they just use the same static address and everything's magically ok? The wiki article doesn't really explain this.
[PSA] If your Bitcoin are not ready-to-transact in a wallet whose keys you exclusively control, then you don't control your Bitcoin (625 points, 216 comments)
Why us old-school Bitcoiners argue that Bitcoin Cash should be considered "the real Bitcoin" (585 points, 587 comments)
I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (535 points, 346 comments)
Why large blocks: because one man's "coffee purchase transaction" is another man's monthly income (508 points, 104 comments)
There is a word for a "store of value" with no underlying utility, and that word is "collectible" (481 points, 171 comments)
Ripple user comes to defend Ripple, gets hundreds of upvotes, but can't answer the most fundamental question: what prevents inflation? (462 points, 407 comments)
If you don't agree that the mission is to make onchain transactions readily available to ALL people at ALL income levels then you don't understand the whole reason Bitcoin was invented to begin with (449 points, 203 comments)
Shutting down or restricting the uses of bank accounts, thereby forbidding clients to buy crypto, is a blatant affront to the rights of civil liberty, manifested, but not limited to, in the rights to private property and free speech (563 points, 262 comments)
I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled. (405 points, 170 comments)
You have $100 worth of BTC. So you purchase an item for $66, but have to pay a $17 fee. Now you have $17 worth of Bitcoin left, but it costs $17 more to move it. So $66 item effectively cost you $100. #Thanks BlockStream (1427 points, 434 comments)
2028 points: kairepaire's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
2019 points: vbuterin's comment in "So no worries, Ethereum's long term value is still ~0." -Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream and opponent of allowing Bitcoin to scale as Satoshi had planned.
1210 points: vbuterin's comment in Vitalik Buterin tried to develop Ethereum on top of Bitcoin, but was stalled because the developers made it hard to build on top of Bitcoin. Vitalik only then built Ethereum as a separate currency
1205 points: LiamGaughan's comment in As of today, Steam will no longer support Bitcoin as a payment method
In it, Gavin Andresen gives a more focused overview of what Bitcoin is and how it works: Lastly, for a much more extended dive into Bitcoin, here is an hour-long interview with Gavin Andresen and ... 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. Andresen explains the origins of BitCoin, how new currency gets created, how you can acquire BitCoins and the prospects for BitCoin's future. Bitcoin became a worldwide sensation when its value hit $1000 in 2013. ... Gavin Andersen speculates that Bitcoin will require less maintenance. ... With enough hardware, Bitcoin mining can be an ... Blockchain analysts estimate that Nakamoto had mined about one million bitcoins  before disappearing in 2010, when he handed the network alert key and control of the code repository over to Gavin Andresen. Andresen later became lead developer at the Bitcoin Foundation.   Andresen then sought to decentralize control. This left ... — Gavin Andresen (@gavinandresen) May 26, 2020. Andresen started working on Bitcoin in 2010 and was the main developer of the Bitcoin Core client software after the disappearance of Satoshi Nakamoto. In 2012 he founded the Bitcoin Foundation and some even speculated that he is the one hiding behind the pseudonym of Satoshi.
DevCore Boston 2015 l Mastering Bitcoin l Andreas M. Antonopoulos
Gavin Andresen Throws Support Behind Bitcoin Cash - Duration: 4 minutes, 12 seconds. ... Satoshi Labs Launches New Bitcoin Hardware Wallet "Model T" - Bitcoin News - Duration: 4 minutes, 7 seconds. He then handed over control of the source code repository and network alert key to Gavin Andresen, transferred several related domains to various prominent members of the bitcoin community ... 9:45 am In-Depth Q&A Session with Gavin Andresen 10:00 am The Internet of Value Exchange – Jeremy Allaire & Sean Neville 11:00 am Bitcoin Law for Developers – James Gatto & Marco Santori - Early supporters of Bitcoin, including Roger Ver, Coinbase, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, etc., are scammers Pretty soon, you have to take a step back and look at whether every single person ... 9:45 am In-Depth Q&A Session with Gavin Andresen 10:00 am The Internet of Value Exchange – Jeremy Allaire & Sean Neville 11:00 am Bitcoin Law for Developers – James Gatto & Marco Santori