Bitcoin Expert Jeff Garzik Exposes Crypto’s ‘Economic

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Top post on /r/bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /r/bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday.

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5q0plz/just_paid_23_cents_on_a_374_transaction_when_does/
ceddit version: https://www.ceddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5q0plz/just_paid_23_cents_on_a_374_transaction_when_does/
Some of the censored comments below. Note that this do not included the hundreds of comments which were filtered by automoderator before they could see the light of day (those comments are not readable with ceddit).
wiseasshole:
Jeff Garzik and Sergio Lerner (security expert) already said upgrading to 2mb is safe.
JustSomeBadAdvice:
Can you quantify the decrease in security that is likely/possible from raising the maximum block size allowed from 1MB to 2MB?
The problem is that no one has any way to realistically estimate how transaction fees will change with larger block sizes, and ultimately all of the security will soon come from transaction fees. Here's a reply I added lower down the thread: This is the tragedy of the commons at play. Individuals are demanding lower transaction fees because they want to pay less, but they ignore what the transaction fees pay for.
An average 600 byte transaction will cost the network around 6 cents to store for the next few hundred years. I calculated that from S3 storage and bandwidth prices, assumed the price of storage and bandwidth continued to drop by 1.5% per year, and assumed we stay at ~5000 full history Bitcoin nodes, and changing the assumptions don't change much since most of the cost comes within the next 15 years anyway.
But more importantly, transaction fees are needed to pay for miners to secure the network from attackers. As the Bitcoin network grows more popular and stable, it will become a bigger target for countries or high net worth organizations that want to manipulate it like a stock. If they amass a huge sum of money and short the Bitcoin net worth for X% of its total value, there needs to be enough mining power to make a 51% attack (mining farm built for the purposes of driving down the price to profit from the short) not viable. There can only be enough mining power if the total sum of transaction fees picks up where the block reward drops off.
There's a way to estimate the mining rewards versus the total Bitcoins that would have to be shorted to be a viable attack. The price of Bitcoin drops out of the equation and within 5 years the total number of Bitcoins becomes (effectively) static as well, so that leads to this rough estimation table: https://i.imgur.com/M03YcXa.png
Our current transaction fees are ~100 btc per day. If they don't increase, someone would only have to gain a profit of 2% of the total net worth to justify building a mining farm that would 51% attack the currency. With leveraged shorting and high-net-worth organizations, that's fucking nothing. We start to be in real danger if transaction fees haven't increased by ~2028.
Gorgamin wrote:
The biggest supercomputer on Earth doesn't work for free unfortunately. If you don't own any mining equipment (which is expensive) or run a node, you can't complain.
to which FantomLancer responded, and had post [removed]:
It is not a good argument or analogy. The price is now dis-attached due to a civil war on how to scale, which is a serious problem that deserves som attention, not some simple phrase about supercomputers.
BashCo wrote:
Segwit will provide a substantial increase to on chain scaling but is being blocked for political reasons. Bitcoin won't be ready for primetime for at least a few more years.
to which WiseAsshole responded and had post [removed]:
No it won't. Miners are not adopting it. It stalled at 24%, just like Bitcoin stalled at 1mb.
Chillingniples had this post [removed]:
I also feel this way. when I got into the community in 2012 there was way more wildly optimistic idealism. It felt like we were really onto something revolutionary here. The longer I have stuck around the more I realized 99 percent of the community is here for self gain. It's a little sad now that when i hear people talking about how btc is going to help all these third world populations and etc, & I can plainly see there are zero solutions in that regard at the moment, that people are saying these things out of greed. They really don't care about people in third world countries. they mainly just want their btc to be worth more. I started my btc journey a very naive idealist, totally convinced we'd soon have our own huge bitcoin economy where people have finally decided to stop supporting the petro dollar and funding the war machine etc etc... but now I realize that idea sounds batshit insane to most people (even a lot of people involved with btc) and not to mention would be an extremely dangerous and volatile thing to attempt to do on a societal scale.
approx- had this post [removed]:
56MB blocks are not unfeasible for the future. Bandwidth is doubling roughly every 18 months. Other computer hardware is still progressing as well. 8MB blocks are completely feasible TODAY. 56MB blocks should be feasible within 5 years.
Ultimately, we need adjustable block sizes (adjustable without hard forks) so that it can adapt to current hardware/bandwidth availability.
nthterm had this post [removed]:
no. stop pricing out the poounbanked. we don't need to maintain HW requirements of running a node at 2008 levels indefinitely. The unbanked don't need to be able to run a node to make onchain transactions. If you moderately scale bitcoin so that it can accomodate increased user adoption, then # of global nodes will increase due to a larger user base. capiche?
eqleric had this post [removed]:
Good thing someone along the line has the ability to convert it to $4800, huh? To most people, saying "my 5 btc transaction only cost .00025 btc" is meaningless. In short, it's only clean money because someone went through those channels that you're mocking to convert it
Xanather had this post [removed]:
Its not a "global censorship resistant payment system". Its P2P money as defined by the whitepaper. Censorship exists on many of the communication mediums that discuss bitcoin.
chinacrash had this post [removed]:
If Core was serious about bitcoin we would already have a date for a blocksize increase.
bunny4u15 had this post [removed]:
There is a bit wrong, it's a soft fork... https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5apvv1/if2mbwasconcededbyblockstreamcoretomorrow/. SegWit is the problem.
submitted by BeijingBitcoins to btc [link] [comments]

An Overview of What's Happening.

This is an overview for those who may have not been following events closely, so unfortunately a TL;DR is not possible. However, I have added headings to make navigation easier. Depending on your interest, you can navigate to: The Debate, Decision Time or How to Run a Node
Introduction
China is having some huge celebrations right now for their new year, which to China is like Christmas for us. So they're enjoying their time with their families and friends, enjoying their food and I should think they are enjoying some wine. I wish them all a very happy new year and may it bring them good health and good fortune.
Hopefully they'll have some time during their holidays to consider the matters summarized here.
The Debate
As you know, we have been having a debate for about three years now and a massive debate for the past 10 months on the question of whether onchain transaction capacity should increase. After two conferences, then a third in Miami, then a fourth in China, a wide economic and mining consensus has been achieved with almost all prominent bitcoin companies supporting classic, with 54% of real hashing power expressing their clear support for classic so far, with 80% of users by most polls and with renown users such as Roger Ver and "loaded" who in combination hold some 340k btc, having expressed support for classic.
We do not however have 100% agreement. Some developers have maintained for quite some time that onchain capacity should not be increased or should be increased by the smallest amount that is absolutely necessary and that most, if not almost all, transactions should instead happen on layer2 settlement systems.
Chief amongst them is Gregory Maxwell who has maintained the same view over the past 3 years and has formed a company with a number of other developers to provide lightning and other products to operate as the settlement system they envision.
Another developer who has maintained the same view is Peter Todd who argued in a propaganda video some three years ago that increasing onchain scalability means nodes will have to be run on datacentres which affects decentralization, therefore everyone should pay $100 or $1000 per onchain transaction instead with most transactions operating through centralized hubs which do not employ proof of work (commentary: no proof of work - no decentralization)
Gavin, Jeff Garzik, many other developers, academics, almost all wallet developers, take a different view. They argue that bitcoin can remain decentralized while scaling onchain. I would add to their argument two points. Bitcoin is efficient because it automates away man. Software is very cheap, employees - the tens of thousands that visa has and the millions that banks have including their rented space etc - are very, very expensive. Calculations have been made which show that to run a node, even if blocks were full right now at 20mb per block, would cost only $100 per year. I'd argue that is a tiny price to pay for the huge benefits that onchain scalability provides. And, even if it costs 1k or 10k, it should be the node operator who pays the market price for the extra security that his node provides, rather than ask users to pay 100 or 1k dollars per transactions instead.
A node provides indirect, but in some circumstances necessary, value to businesses, miners, researchers, hobbyist and whoever wants to run one. Asking 5k nodes to pay 1k makes far more sense than asking 200k transactions a day to pay 100 or 1k per transaction and it is of course way cheaper too.
However, after all the conferences, after all the debates, after all the never ending arguments, they retain their position. Therefore, developer agreement is not possible.
Decision Time
As such, the decision has now been opened to everyone to decide one question alone. Whether you agree with Satoshi's vision that we should scale onchain - and thus support classic - or whether you agree with Gregory's vision of a settlement system, and thus keep running a core node.
The way this works is in stages. Firstly, nodes have to upgrade first so that everyone has the time and opportunity to upgrade and be on the new rules. This is extremely important because old nodes (including core nodes) won't be able to work anymore if classic succeeds. Therefore, the economy (which includes businesses, miners, individuals) has to be given the opportunity to upgrade first, with miners having their vote second by the blocks they mine.
An indirect result of the upgrade process is that it gives an indication of where the sentiment and public opinion stands. Of course, this can be played, so it is not a perfect indication, but there are ways of telling when this indication is played to a significant degree. I'd rather not go into the details just as google doesn't go into the details of how it ranks pages, but this is an important time for bitcoin and the world so I would ask all who have the true interest of bitcoin at heart to refrain from any immature behavior so that we can learn where the community stands, giving the losing side, whichever it may be, the opportunity to accept the will of the people, and the results, thus allowing us to move forward as one.
I'll give some instructions on how to run or upgrade a node in a way that can be counted. First I want to say that you should run a classic node for many reasons, but chiefly three. It implements Satoshi's vision, the vision of that genius who knows how bitcoin works best and who with that knowledge designed it to scale considerably.
The second is in regards to our community. Many individuals, and not just Theymos, have engaged in censorship and banning in almost all the main communication channels, including the Hong Kong conference, the mailing list, the IRC channels and of course on bitcoin. I hope you agree with me that it is extremely important for us to show fundamental disapproval with such unprincipled and immoral behavior by running classic, and not reward them for it.
Thirdly, because cheap, fast and convenient is an incredibly important competitive quality of bitcoin. I would argue that the only reason why the mainstream media and silicon valley is abuzz about bitcoin is because it can save billions in fees and other ways such as making value transfer faster and more convenient. I want to change the world and offer to all bitcoin's supreme qualities of an open, permissionless, decentralized, global ledger, with fast if not almost instant and very cheap transactions, while having a gold like retention of value.
We know this works. It has been working for 7 years and works right now (although blocks are full making it not work as well as it can). Let's keep it working by upgrading to welcome the new wave of people and companies and miners.
How to run a node:
If you are not already running a node, you can download classic here: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v0.11.2.cl1.b2
For windows, it is as easy as downloading any normal software. You just have to wait for it to synchronize and you are good to go.
You'll then need to open port 8333 for your node to be counted https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#daemon-peer-info
If you already run a node you can easily upgrade without having to re-download the whole chain.
You can use cloud servers as well if you wish. Cloud nodes do still provide all the functionalities, but the cloud admin may have some control over your node, so it is best you run it on hardware you control. If nonetheless you still wish to use cloud, it is best that you do so through your own account rather than through someone else.
I think that covers all grounds. Obviously the above overview is necessarily reflective of my own views, but nullc and petertodd are welcomed to express their views at this important time and I hope they do not get downvoted simply because we disagree with their views, but allow them to have their say.
submitted by aquentin to btc [link] [comments]

why hard-forks without solid, compulsory replay protection make a PoW change more likely

Let's examine the logic of refusing to incorporate a solid and compulsory 2-way protection in a Hard-Fork.
For instance the questionable but interesting rationale exposed here by Paul Sztorc: "Been waiting for someone else to figure this out...replay protection helps only the rival chain! Helps only your adversaries! How funny" replying to Brian Hoffman (OpenBazaar) "If segwit2x goal is to become the main Bitcoin why on earth would you include replay protection. Need to kill the minority chain."
Jeff Garzik defines Segwit2X success as taking over BTC - including brand and ecosystem. But in reality, the concept of surviving chains each with a different concept of self-importance is very real, as we have seen with the precedent established by BCH/bcash. You may want to define importance as the number of double-SHA256 hashes your ecosystem is capable of calculating. But the other side of your argument does not need to agree to that, and they may well continue along with whoever wants to provide support for them.
A big roadblock to BCH/bcash has been the fact that many parts of the ecosystem don't support them, or didn't straight away. Seems like the Segwit2X proponents want to avoid this situation and aspire to the BTC brand and ecosystem.
But what will happen if SegWit2X provokes another estable chain fork, but one where both sides work right away without requiring any change in hardware/software/web wallets, and with API-compatibility with most of the existing services? (only requiring their nodes to point at one chain or the other). This changes the game by making it extremely easy to hard fork and allowing MAJOR changes we have been holding off. Concretely, a re-decentralisation of mining via a PoW change seems like a no-brainer in this new situation, as miners would go back to simply mining and be unable to hold developers hostage when trying to make development decisions.
It seems like a very direct conclusion that a non-protected Hard Fork makes a PoW change more plausible and more likely.
*typo
submitted by muyuu to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-11-12)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization Note that I crosspost this to Voat, bitcoin.com and the bitcoin-discuss mailing list every week. I can't control what's being talking about in the meeting, if certain things come up I might not be able to post here because of "guidelines".
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer and I'd have problems coding "hello world!", so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. Like any other write-up it likely contains personal biases, although I try to stay as neutral as I can. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, so if I say "everyone agrees" this means everyone present in the meeting, that's not consensus, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. The dev IRC and mailinglist are for bitcoin development purposes. If you have not contributed actual code to a bitcoin-implementation, this is probably not the place you want to reach out to. There are many places to discuss things that the developers read, including this sub-reddit.
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
transaction priority for 0.12 Opt-in replace-by-fee Versionbits Chain limits
transaction priority for 0.12
Each transaction is assigned a priority, determined by the age, size, and number of inputs. Which currently makes some transactions free. This currently has a large amount of code, which makes it harder to maintain, and is not that optimal since you can't expect miners to include 0-fee transactions.
Most people seem fine with removing priority in the mempool, but people should be notified ahead of time this is coming. sdaftuar proposed a staggered approach, setting the default value for priority to 0, and remove it entirely in the next release. petertodd notes there will be a natural staggered process since not everyone will upgrade to 0.12 instantly and some implementations might not remove priority at all. Most wallet-software outside of bitcoin-core don't implement priority calculations. As fee estimation becomes more important and many wallet providers use the bitcoin-core fee estimation, improvements on that are welcome. Luke-Jr doesn't agree with removing priority, particularly with changing the mining code to use the priority a transaction has when it enters the mempool. Sipa has the idea to add a small fraction of bitcoin days destroyed divided by the average UTXO age to the fee, so that non-spam-attack transactions are viewed as if they have a larger fee.
While most agree with the proposal to remove the current priority, there's still much debate on whether it needs to be replaced for 0.13, and if so, how.
Review "Improve usage of fee estimation code" BlueMatt will mail the developer mailinglist announcing the changes. ( https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02790.html )
Opt-in replace-by-fee
Currently when a node sees a transaction that spends the same output it ignores it. With replace-by-fee it replaces the current transaction in the mempool if it has a higher fee. This allows for things like spending "stuck" transactions, adding more recipients to a transaction in order to prevent chaining, etc.
Since there are people that accept 0-confirmation transactions and this would make it extremely easy to double spend them, this is made opt-in. The sender can choose to opt-in to replace-by-fee by changing an input in the nSequence field.
Peter Todd wrote some tools to use replace-by-fee. link It would be nice to have opt-in per output instead of the whole transaction, however that would be very hard to implement and would have some privacy concerns. Luke-Jr would like to see an option to toggle between first-seen-safe/full RBF and neveopt-in/always. Since there are possibly some objections with the "always" toggle it should be a separate pull-request.
review and merge nSequence-based Full-RBF opt-in Peter Todd will write a mail to the list to explain how it works and how people can not accept opt-in transactions.
Versionbits
BIP 9 Currently softforks have been done by the isSuperMajority mechanism, meaning when 95% of the last X blocks has a version number higher than Y the fork is deployed. A new way of doing this is currently being worked on and that uses all bits of the version number, appropriately being called versionbits. So instead of a fork happening when the version is larger than (for example) 00000000011 (3), a fork happens when (for example) the 3rd bit is up (so 00100000011). This way softforks can be deployed simultaneous and independent of each other.
There are 2 different implementations. One from Codeshark and one from Rusty jtimon thinks both implementations are more complicated than they need to be. There needs to be a minor revision namely a starting time for proposals. In general we'd like to get this in soon, but existing softforks need to complete first.
CodeShark adds a starting time to versionbits.
Chain limits
Chain in this context means connected transactions. When you send a transaction that depends on another transaction that has yet to be confirmed we talk about a chain of transactions. Miners ideally take the whole chain into account instead of just every single transaction (although that's not widely implemented afaik). So while a single transaction might not have a sufficient fee, a depending transaction could have a high enough fee to make it worthwhile to mine both. This is commonly known as child-pays-for-parent. Since you can make these chains very big it's possible to clog up the mempool this way. With the recent malleability attacks, anyone who made transactions going multiple layers deep would've already encountered huge problems doing this (beautifully explained in let's talk bitcoin #258 from 13:50 onwards) Proposal and github link.
Wumpus doesn't feel comfortable with merging it because there's some controversy from companies who exceed the limits (or could be/want to). jgarzik does feel comfortable with it, and many think it should be merged as it's easy to revert if needed. There's little choice as it's not safe from attacks without limits. We should communicate the replace-by-fee sendmany alternative to long chains (adding new recipients on existing non-confirmed transactions), although it won't show up in users wallet yet and block-explorers probably aren't ready to display it correctly. Emphasis on the fact it's a change in default values, not a consensus change, however default values have a lot of power. The final limits are 25 transactions and 101kb total size for both ancestor and descendant packages.
jgarzik will merge the pull-request. Morcos will mail the list once it's merged.
Participants
BlueMatt Matt Corallo petertodd Peter Todd morcos Alex Morcos jgarzik Jeff Garzik gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr jtimon Jorge Timón btcdrak btcdrak phantomcircuit Patrick Strateman sipa Pieter Wuille CodeShark Eric Lombrozo sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar jg_taxi jg_taxi gavinandresen Gavin Andresen cfields Cory Fields bsm1175321 Bob McElrath 
Comic relief
19:53 sipa new topic? 19:53 wumpus any other topics? 19:53 petertodd  19:53 jgarzik did we cover jonas while I was in the taxi? 19:54 sdaftuar ? 19:54 jtimon ? 19:54 CodeShark not sure I want to know 19:54 jgarzik proposal for new GUI maintainer 19:54 CodeShark sounds kinky, though 19:54 petertodd CodeShark: GUI's are pretty kinky 19:56 BlueMatt ok, end meeting? 19:56 btcdrak if we can remember the command this week :-) 19:56 wumpus #meetingend 19:56 gmaxwell #destroymeeting 19:56 wumpus #endmeeting 19:56 Luke-Jr #endmeeting 19:56 lightningbot Meeting ended Thu Nov 12 19:56:42 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) 19:56 BlueMatt #magicmeetbotincantation 19:57 petertodd #DoWhatIMean 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-10-22)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer and I'd have problems coding "hello world!", so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. Like any other write-up it likely contains personal biases, although I try to stay as neutral as I can. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, so if I say "everyone agrees" this means everyone present in the meeting, that's not consensus, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. The dev IRC and mailinglist are for bitcoin development purposes. If you have not contributed actual code to a bitcoin-implementation, this is probably not the place you want to reach out to. There are many places to discuss things that the developers read, including this sub-reddit.
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
Mempool Memory Usage LevelDB replacement Median Past locktime & CLTV
Short topics/notes
BIP 9 Versionbits PR #6816 is ready for implementation and needs more reviews.
A 3 month moderation period on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist has started, as well as a new list bitcoin-discuss. more details: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Octobe011591.html
"bitcoin.org had incorrect release notes for 0.11.1. It's corrected now. They had posted the release notes for the initial RC and not updated them. Process wise it would be good to watch out for that in the future."
Mempool Memory Usage
When a transaction is relayed across the network it is held by the nodes in memory, until it gets into a block. All these transactions that sit in memory are called the memorypool or mempool for short. Like we could see during the spam-attack if there's a big back-log of transactions that couldn't make it in the blockchain this mempool can get pretty big resulting in nodes crashing.
To stop this from happening devs created a mechanism to reject and/or remove transactions from the mempool. This mempool limiting got merged this week.
Also relevant: There is an already existing limit on the database cache size called "dbCache". The default value for that is 100MB.
Testing shows there's a discrepancy between the configured mempool limit and the actual memory usage. This is caused by the amount of UTXO data when processing transactions. This data is only flushed after a block is processed (so temporarily exceeding the cache limit set in dbCache).
There are 2 "obvious" solutions for this:
  1. Always enforce the UTXO cache limit, just like the mempool limit is always enforced. Downside for that is if you misconfigure your mempool limit an attack can blow away your UTXO cache, which significantly slows down validation and propagation.
  2. Take the UTXO cache into account when limiting the mempool. Downside for that is that you could construct transactions which require way more cache space and thereby more easily kick out other transactions.
A more optimal solution would be to give priority in the cache to things in the mempool. Ways to achieve that are to kick UTXO's from transaction that are evicted from the mempool out of the cache and from transactions that never made it into the mempool. Something TheBlueMatt is working on
Continue to research and optimize.
LevelDB replacement
LevelDB is the database system currently used in bitcoin. Since this is not being maintained for some time devs are looking for replacements.
jgarzik worked on a patch for SQLite Some people express concerns whether the performance will be good enough with SQLite, but there are no benchmark results yet.
Do research into other options Do lots of benchmarks and report results
Median Past locktime & CLTV
When a block is created miners include a timestamp. This timestamp has to be between the median of the previous 11 blocks and the network-adjusted time +2 hours. So this timestamp can vary a decent amount from the real time. With the introduction of lock-time transactions, that are only valid after a certain time, miners are incentivised to lie about the time in order to include time-locked transactions (and their fees) that wouldn't otherwise be valid. BIP 113 enables the usage of GetMedianTimePast (the median of the previous 11 blocks) from the prior block in lock-time transactions to combat this behaviour. Users can compensate for this by adding 1 hour (6 blocks) to their lock times.
CLTV stands for CheckLockTimeVerify, BIP65 Commonly reffered to as: How you thought nLockTime worked before you actually tried to use it.
CLTV is ready to be merged (and has been merged at time of writing) Questions of whether to add median past locktime as mempool only or as softfork Overall questions as to what to include in the CLTV deployment, what to include as mem-pool only and what as softfork. Median past locktime violates current 'standard' behavior, so we would prefer to have that violation dead in the network before the median past locktime softfork moves forward.
review BIP-113: Mempool-only median time-past as endpoint for lock-time calculations review the CLTV backports (done and merged at time of writing) Backport median past locktime to 0.10 and 0.11
Participants
btcdrak btcdrak sipa Pieter Wuille gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell BlueMatt Matt Corallo morcos Alex Morcos petertodd Peter Todd CodeShark Eric Lombrozo jgarzik Jeff Garzik maaku Mark Friedenbach kanzure Bryan Bishop jcorgan Johnathan Corgan Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr jonasschnelli Jonas Schnelli sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The history of the "opt-in" full RBF merged into core

1) Peter Todd (Bitcoin core developer, the author of the merged "opt-in" full RBF) convinced Chung Wang (Co-owner and chief administrator of the F2Pool) to adopt Full RBF at F2Pool
Yesterday F2Pool, currently the largest pool with 21% of the hashing power, enabled full replace-by-fee (RBF) support after discussions with me.
Peter Todd Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:41:51 -0700
2) Many got disappointed, including Gavin Andersen (the chief scientist at Bitcoin Foundation and the former lead developer of Bitcoin core) and Adrian Macneil (Director of Engineering at Coinbase at that time):
Extremely disappointed to hear this. This change turns double spending from a calculable (and affordable) risk for merchant payment processors into certain profit for scammers, and provides no useful benefit for consumers.
Adrian Macneil, Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:06:36 -0700
I was disappointed to see Peter Todd claiming that you have (or will?) run his replace-by-fee patch. I strongly encourage you to wait until most wallet software supports replace-by-fee before doing that, because until that happens replace-by-fee just makes it easier to steal from bitcoin-accepting merchants.
Gavin Andersen, Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:35:14 -0700
3) F2Pool switched from full RBF to FSS (first-seen-safe) RBF
I know how bad the full RBF is. We are going to switch to FSS RBF in a few hours. Sorry.
Chun Wang, Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:54:18 -0700
4) Founder and CEO of GreenAddress IT Limited tried to convince miners that full RBF is better for them
FSS RBF is better than no RBF but we think it is better to use full RBF. <..> And why would miner pick the option paying less when other miners run the option paying more? It may be soon more than 1-5% of block reward.
Lawrence Nahum, Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:19:16 -0700 (Founder and CEO of GreenAddress IT Limited)
5) Jeff Garzik, the developer of the Bitcoin core, agreed however that FSS RBF is better
Yes, FSS RBF is far better.
Jeff Garzik Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:45:18 -0700
6) After the long discussion, moderated by Theymos in order to remove distraction from poor trolls the so-called "opt-in" full-RBF got merged into the Core.
Am I missing anything?
Oh, the weird "opt-in" part of it (that doesn't opt-in anything). Why did they merge it?
Because there's too much FUD to get it merged without. Luke-jr, bitcoin core developer
How will Bitcoin become mainstream with 1Mb blocks, high fees and lack of 0-conf transactions?
Bitcoin core developers think it is inefficient to let every transaction be stored in the blockchain forever (and it is true).
They envision Bitcoin not as a public payment system available for everybody, but as a settlement layer for other complex technical solutions, so they are optimizing it for them. I have nothing against complex technical solutions, I am looking forward to them.
But I am against freezing the temporary 1Mb block size limit (that was introduced back in 2010) and adopting the RBF today because these changes to bitcoin policy may harm the main stream adoption of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin payment processors and merchants that are crucial for the adoption are likely to suffer and buyers are likely to get repelled by high fees and long confirmation times.
submitted by arsenische to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2018-04-20 to 2018-05-20 06:58 PDT

Period: 29.85 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 53623
Rate (per day) 33.50 1780.26
Unique Redditors 466 5134
Combined Score 118969 219877

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 7839 points, 57 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. If all the 32MB blocks were permanently 100% full, this $400 hard drive could store the blockchain for the next 7 years. (373 points, 352 comments)
    2. The people behind Bitcoin Cash are the ones who created Bitcoin's network effect in the first place. (357 points, 123 comments)
    3. Bitcoin subscribers are now calling for people to report Bitcoin.com to the Internet Crime Complaint Center of the FBI. It's sad that BTC supporters all seem to be statists who yell about hodling their muh store of value all day. (348 points, 288 comments)
    4. I have more emails saved on my computer than the entire BTC or BCH block chains. (319 points, 131 comments)
    5. Bitcoin.com is now sponsoring pro female MMA athletes. (293 points, 121 comments)
    6. CoinGeek will support Bitcoin.com in lawsuit over the real Bitcoin - Coingeek (273 points, 354 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash is now on iOS in the world’s most popular crypto wallet. #winning (257 points, 131 comments)
    8. "The vast majority of mining hash power was controlled by people who were psychologically incapable of disobedience to perceived authority." -Mike Hearn (250 points, 194 comments)
    9. "BTC True Believers" Are Boycotting the First National Talk Radio Show that ever Discussed Bitcoin because they accept BCH payments. (245 points, 116 comments)
    10. All I keep hearing is that Bitcoin Cash is an infested cesspool of lawless, leaderless, disrespectful, narcissistic, greedy, scammy, capitalistic anarchists that will never create digital money! I swear I’m getting dejavu! (225 points, 46 comments)
  2. 3965 points, 19 submissions: hunk_quark
    1. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. (614 points, 114 comments)
    2. Purse.io is paying its employees in Bitcoin Cash. (447 points, 63 comments)
    3. Shoutout to Kraken for standing up to NY Attorney General. If Schneiderman wants transparency and accountability he should be looking into auditing the fed. (406 points, 28 comments)
    4. Bitcoin is rat poison. The bankers are the rats. (404 points, 56 comments)
    5. Forbes Author Frances Coppola takes blockstream to task. (364 points, 35 comments)
    6. Purse CEO Andrew Lee confirms they are paying employees in BCH and native BCH integration update will be coming soon! (343 points, 43 comments)
    7. PSA: So called 'low-fee' cryptocurrency Litecoin has transaction fees 20x higher than Bitcoin Cash (264 points, 80 comments)
    8. After today's BCH Upgrade, longer posts are now enabled on memo.cash! (250 points, 31 comments)
    9. Jeffrey Tucker is promoting bitcoin.com at Atlanta Bitcoin Embassy. (195 points, 57 comments)
    10. Anti-Bitcoiners, life comes at you fast! (109 points, 26 comments)
  3. 3846 points, 30 submissions: Kain_niaK
    1. Bitcoin Cash has not only removed the cap on transactions but also the cap on development. Something new pops up every time I blink. (368 points, 162 comments)
    2. I am getting flashbacks from when I tried to close my Bank of America account ... (353 points, 155 comments)
    3. Fucking /bitcoin assholes reported my twitter account and now I need to verify with a phone number before I can continue with twitter. (325 points, 218 comments)
    4. Paul Wasensteiner: When is @Twitter going to fix the abuse of the report button by @bitcoincoreorg supporters? Why are supporters of a supposedly censorship-resistant money using censorship at every opportunity? (295 points, 106 comments)
    5. We should pirate the entire piratebay.org website and all it's functionality directly on to the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. The piratebay.org is just magnet links and comments. Then they will say bcash stole our business ... (232 points, 439 comments)
    6. Fees higher than a dollar cent or waiting times longer than a couple of seconds defeat the entire purpose of why Bitcoin was invented. (218 points, 164 comments)
    7. moneybutton.com is a configurable client-side Bitcoin Cash (BCH) wallet in an iframe. When the user makes a payment, a webhook URL is called allowing your app to respond to the payment, such as displaying content behind a pay wall. (189 points, 37 comments)
    8. We proudly present BCHpizza.org! Now the community can create city bounties for pizza shops to incentivize them to accept Bitcoin Cash. First pizza shop in a city to do so gets the bounty! (177 points, 117 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Cash can turn in to the biggest non violent protest against the establishment ever : "We simply stop using their money." Which is a great way of getting edgy teenagers to join us. There is an almost infinite supply of edgy teenagers in the world. (156 points, 42 comments)
    10. We need testers for the Cash Shuffle plugin. (121 points, 17 comments)
  4. 3666 points, 28 submissions: Windowly
    1. "Billion-dollar corporations take note: Bitcoin Cash is open for business! Just try to fill up our blocks, I dare you. There will be no "Fidelity Effect" with BCH. Unlike BTC, we want you to use the Blockchain. BCH never really hits a scale ceiling."~Dr. Peter Rizun (415 points, 177 comments)
    2. "In a discussion group of BCH, lots of investors concerned about the address confusing problem. BCH community should push every software of ecosystem to upgrade to Cashaddr ASAP."~Jihan Wu (366 points, 215 comments)
    3. "Maybe the best way to bring economic freedom to the world is to make an uncensorable Twitter."~Ryan X. Charles (300 points, 114 comments)
    4. Newbie tip! Do yourself a favor, get a Protonmail email account and switch all your crypto exchanges to that email. No reason Google/Gmail need to have your entire crypto history at their fingertips. (299 points, 133 comments)
    5. "On the 15th of May, I'll be popping the champagne, not to celebrate high fees, but to celebrate continued low fees, privacy enablements, smart contract capabilities, and PayPal level throughput capability."~Eli Afram (233 points, 46 comments)
    6. 24% of the trading on GDAX in the last 24 hours was for Bitcoin Cash (BCH)! 😊💃 (185 points, 16 comments)
    7. Yeah!! "We are pleased to announce that the new Bitcoin Cash address format has been implemented on QuadrigaCX. This will help our users to easily distinguish Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash addresses when funding/withdrawing their account. The BCH legacy addresses will still be supported." (165 points, 8 comments)
    8. ANNOUNCE: Coinbase has blocked the official @WikiLeaks shop from its platform without notice or explanation. You can continue to donate #Bitcoin to WikiLeaks at https://WikiLeaks.org/donate . (164 points, 55 comments)
    9. There is a Bitcoin Unlimited election today. (BU is one of the 6+ development teams that develop clients for Bitcoin Cash (BCH). BU has a unique governance system where developers are not king. . instead members vote on proposals. If you are a member, please vote! (161 points, 29 comments)
    10. Bitpay Adds Bitcoin Cash Support to Checkout Point-of-Sale App - Bitcoin News (151 points, 22 comments)
  5. 2565 points, 15 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit (575 points, 335 comments)
    2. Frances Coppola on Twitter: “Congratulations, Blockstream, you have just reinvented the interbank lending market.” (411 points, 139 comments)
    3. Once again Core supporters threaten with lawsuits and government intervention to try to get their way. This is just pathetic and not the foundations of what Bitcoin was built on. These are not bitcoiners. (299 points, 355 comments)
    4. Get ready - Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15th! (198 points, 132 comments)
    5. CobraBitcoin: "Lightning is cool, but nobody should be recommending it to actual merchants for at least the next few years. Merchants like Steam already got hurt by adopting Bitcoin and regretting it later. Lightning needs time to mature and prove itself. Mad hype to rush adoption will harm it." (157 points, 58 comments)
    6. Blockchain on Twitter: “What's that you see? It's all your BCH that now appears in your #ios wallet. Take control of your financial future and #beyourownbank today.” (138 points, 20 comments)
    7. We are living in the digital age of information, which is why censorship has become such an important issue [...] That’s why I’m excited about decentralized social networks built on top of Bitcoin Cash like @BlockPressApp & @memobch. They are new so need work, but the path is being paved. (131 points, 31 comments)
    8. BlockPress published its protocol (123 points, 22 comments)
    9. We have a new alternative public mod logs (96 points, 35 comments)
    10. If Bitcoin Core (BTC) is no longer usable by many people in the world due to being out priced (high tx fees), is it still “borderless”? I’d argue that it’s no longer borderless if people all over the world are excluded from the network. (95 points, 34 comments)
  6. 2030 points, 11 submissions: tralxz
    1. Breaking News: Winklevoss Brothers Bitcoin Exchange Adds Bitcoin Cash support! (508 points, 115 comments)
    2. Jihan Wu was asked "Why are the miners still supporting Bitcoin Core? Is it just a short term profitability play?", he answered: "Yes, exactly." (279 points, 215 comments)
    3. Cobra:"That feeling when Blockstream, [...] release Liquid, a completely centralized sidechain run only by trusted nodes and designed for banks, financial institutions and exchanges." (245 points, 145 comments)
    4. LibreOffice Foundation accepts Bitcoin Cash donations. (191 points, 11 comments)
    5. Breaking News! Vin Armani: "Major mining pools have agreed to establish a treasury and start funding $BCH development from their block rewards. HUGE!!!" (186 points, 80 comments)
    6. CNBC's Fast Money: Ran NeuNer says he would HODL Bitcoin Cash and sell Bitcoin Core. (172 points, 59 comments)
    7. Jihan Wu on Bloomberg predicting Bitcoin Cash at $100,000 USD in 5 years. (172 points, 65 comments)
    8. Let's start the Bitcoin Cash upgrade party. New era for BCH is coming May 15. Privacy tools + smart contracts + PayPal capacity handling. Exciting times ahead! (106 points, 37 comments)
    9. Coindesk: "Florida Tax Collector to Accept Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash Payments" (60 points, 8 comments)
    10. Adam B.: "Bitcoin is not a democracy". The authoritarian moves by Core makes perfect sense now. (59 points, 46 comments)
  7. 1485 points, 12 submissions: jonald_fyookball
    1. BTCers fundraise for frivolous lawsuit. BCH fundraises to feed Venezuelans. (233 points, 58 comments)
    2. bitcoin admits: best way to use Lightning Network: don't use it. (189 points, 286 comments)
    3. Electron Cash 3.2 is available. Includes new op-codes and fixes for Ledger hardware wallet (180 points, 50 comments)
    4. If you have to call it bcash you've already lost the argument (164 points, 257 comments)
    5. Cash Shuffle plugin 0.2 - Cash Shuffle development continues (131 points, 37 comments)
    6. Claims that BCH is a "centralized coin" are exaggerations at best. (114 points, 83 comments)
    7. (shitpost) philosoraptor meme: if honeybadger don't care... (106 points, 22 comments)
    8. BCH being a minority chain may be a blessing in disguise (97 points, 83 comments)
    9. Another reason to be bullish on BCH (92 points, 18 comments)
    10. BCHpizza already has 4 bounties posted. It's also no longer needed to sign a message to post a bounty. (89 points, 21 comments)
  8. 1393 points, 8 submissions: rdar1999
    1. Naomi Brockwell on Twitter: "[I] won’t succumb to censorship through intimidation." (332 points, 190 comments)
    2. Consensus 2018 sucked hard. Superficial talks, ridiculous ticket price, overcrowded venue. (233 points, 78 comments)
    3. ==> Becash or Begone: reclaiming the "bcash" trolling (213 points, 107 comments)
    4. See in this twitter thread Luke Jr actually arguing that PayPal is cheaper than BCH!! Is this guy in full delirium? Or just spouts misinformation on purpose? (172 points, 227 comments)
    5. ///\ BTC-BCH persists as the most popular trade on ShapeShift.io /// (171 points, 20 comments)
    6. The retard tribalism is so real. SBI japan's financial giant says they will launch a platform with BCH as settlement coin (due to BTC being bad) and XRP as remittances. I provide the link and cryptocurrency shills deny plain literally declared fact. (124 points, 50 comments)
    7. Chris DeRose on Twitter: "So if Roger ver wins the class action lawsuit, I assume that Bitcoin cash can then rightfully sue Bitcoin core proponents for fraud?" (92 points, 61 comments)
    8. Upgrade completed at height 530356! (56 points, 2 comments)
  9. 1377 points, 12 submissions: Egon_1
    1. Genesis Mining:"We are more than happy to announce that Bitcoin Cash is now available as a Native Mining option for all Bitcoin (Sha256) contracts!" (287 points, 22 comments)
    2. Jihan Wu on BCH Lighthouse:”This project was abandoned on BTC Blockchain long time ago, it is very excited to see it is alive again on BCH Blockchain. It can be very huge.” (278 points, 50 comments)
    3. Yahoo Finance: "Bitcoin Goes Lateral as Bitcoin Cash Steals the Show… AGAIN" (189 points, 46 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin Cash is actually more interesting ..." (119 points, 15 comments)
    5. Jeff Garzik:"Just got an earful from a Chicago cabbie, on $LTC He was very grumpy at @SatoshiLite selling, saying it indicated a lack of founder's confidence in his own creation. #StreetCrypto" (100 points, 8 comments)
    6. “Why don't we start saying: "Bitcoin is Cash" It's much harder to refute than "Bitcoin Cash IS Bitcoin"“ (75 points, 49 comments)
    7. "Because Bitcoin Cash is effectively Bitcoin ✌️ (72 points, 22 comments)
    8. Bye Bye P2P Electronic Cash ... (68 points, 88 comments)
    9. Bitcoin.com Wallet needs more useful services integrated... beyond Shapeshift (59 points, 24 comments)
    10. BCH keeps bitcoins minions busy (48 points, 28 comments)
  10. 1291 points, 9 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. Vitalik Buterin says what we've all been saying - CoinDesk is scammy and complicit bad actor in the cryptocurrency world and should be shunned (510 points, 61 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Wallet Mycelium Begins Rolling Out Bitcoin Cash BCH Support (163 points, 39 comments)
    3. Cheddr is a Bitcoin Cash Point Of Sale system that runs in most modern browsers - no server infrastructure required (137 points, 31 comments)
    4. Leaked Telegram chat shows bitcoin.com "fraud" lawsuit was abandoned due to lack of support 😂😂😂 (135 points, 32 comments)
    5. Toshi to expand beyond Ethereum - will add Bitcoin Cash (91 points, 7 comments)
    6. Litecoin transaction fees 20 times higher than Bitcoin Cash (85 points, 44 comments)
    7. DAMN BCH! (68 points, 25 comments)
    8. In honor of the Bitcoin Cash successful upgrade and now we have the true lightning network. I present to you lightningnetwork.cash! (58 points, 22 comments)
    9. Bcore shills are crying right now 😭😭😂😂 (44 points, 10 comments)
  11. 1202 points, 9 submissions: SharkLaserrrrr
    1. Memo is now open source! (361 points, 160 comments)
    2. Based on @BitcoinCashFund report, preliminary calculation: Total spent: $153,138.49 Total spent on Salaries and Travel: $101,996.79 ~66% of donations is spent on themselves, charities/non-profits (official registered ones) limit themselves to less than 10% (161 points, 181 comments)
    3. [PREVIEW] Looks like Lighthouse powered by Bitcoin Cash is coming together nicely thanks to the hard work of an anonymous developer. I wonder how Mike Hearn feels about his project being resurrected. (159 points, 24 comments)
    4. We heard you want a Bitcoin Cash exclusive wallet that uses ‘bits’ and enables you to buy anything online and pay with Bitcoin Cash so we are building one #cashpay #CryptonizeYourPurchases (137 points, 77 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin experience. If you have any doubts, go buy something on cryptonize.it, then buy something off a Lightning store and compare what you had to go through to pay for your order. (103 points, 51 comments)
    6. As of today, cryptonize.it shows prices in Bitcoin Cash next to fiat! (81 points, 9 comments)
    7. Incompatible protocols gave us the ’90s web which was not a pretty sight. Let’s not repeat the same mistakes when building censorship resisted social media powered by Bitcoin Cash. Support @MemoBCH protocol. (72 points, 57 comments)
    8. To help developers raise funds, cryptonize.it is sponsoring a Lighthouse server and website so useful projects can be funded by the community directly. (66 points, 7 comments)
    9. $25,- Amazon gift cards back in store, 0-conf. instant delivery, the real bitcoin experience (62 points, 18 comments)
  12. 1189 points, 1 submission: ocist1121
    1. No spend (1189 points, 87 comments)
  13. 1148 points, 6 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Three years ago today, Mike Hearn published an article explaining exactly what would happen when the 1MB blocksize limit was hit. He was right on all counts. (473 points, 173 comments)
    2. An easy way to visualize the August 1st Hard Fork. Neither of the two branches resulting from a fork can be called "the original road," but only one branch continues towards the same destination. (163 points, 140 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core fanatics are trying to organize a lawsuit against Bitcoin.com for using the term "Bitcoin (BCH)", while they run around all day labelling it "Bcash" (157 points, 167 comments)
    4. "Bitcoin Cash won't "fork" in May. Instead, Bitcoin Cash will just upgrade." (123 points, 53 comments)
    5. Just launched: Satoshi Pulse, by Bitcoin.com (121 points, 44 comments)
    6. Ryan Charles delivers an epic rant about Lightning Network problems (111 points, 19 comments)
  14. 1085 points, 10 submissions: unitedstatian
    1. Reminder: Blockstream plans to make money from the proprietary solutions it sells, which is why it moved away from the free permissionless blockchain to an abstracted layer on top which requires 3rd party solutions to be cost effective for most users. (220 points, 146 comments)
    2. It seems there's been a massive propaganda campaign to brainwash people into thinking hardforks are bad. (180 points, 56 comments)
    3. BCH could really be missing the new big use case. Gamers would love to have real ownership of game items. The first game which will integrate a digital coin and make it popular will be groundbreaking. (141 points, 76 comments)
    4. The guy had 350 bucks received via Lightning Network but he can't even close the channels to actually withdraw the bitcoins. (139 points, 188 comments)
    5. What gives Core the right to change the model so drastically and still keep the brand name? (119 points, 117 comments)
    6. One of the most ignorant - even anti-crypto - argument I hear around is that BCH is a currency controlled by Chinese miners. (88 points, 74 comments)
    7. The first megabytes are far more crucial than the 100th. Not every MB was born equal and by giving up on adoption for years Core may have given up on adoption forever. (69 points, 20 comments)
    8. In light of the recent ERC-20 bug I think this is a good time to remember these wise words (54 points, 25 comments)
    9. If BCH had decent privacy features it'd gain so much more market share. It's hard to compete with privacy-always-on coins such as XMR but many more coins offer moderate privacy and would be easy to beat. (42 points, 31 comments)
    10. If Memo taught me one thing it's the more uses around the coin the better - can BCH be adopted to help fight counterfeiting? (33 points, 4 comments)
  15. 1055 points, 5 submissions: ForkiusMaximus
    1. MortuusBestia hits on a pitch-perfect way of looking at BCH's value proposition in epic comment on /BitcoinMarkets (604 points, 109 comments)
    2. I am excited that BCH is being irrationally criticized, because it reminds me of 2011 and 2012 when Bitcoin was being irrationally criticized. Any of 2013, when the price rose 100x. (183 points, 82 comments)
    3. Japanese tweeter makes a good point about BTC: "You don't call it an asset if it crumbles away every time you go to use it. You call it a consumable." (144 points, 21 comments)
    4. Jimmy Nguyen: Bitcoin Cash can function for higher level technical programming (80 points, 3 comments)
    5. How NOT to tell which is "the real Bitcoin" (44 points, 15 comments)
  16. 1032 points, 6 submissions: theantnest
    1. Let's start a class action lawsuit against Canada for calling their currency the dollar. I accidentally bought CAD when I wanted USD, and didn't know I could just exchange it again. (511 points, 243 comments)
    2. BTC noobs conned into being concerned about node count to distract them from the real centralization problem: (137 points, 172 comments)
    3. Any real scientist interested in Bitcoin should be happy Bitcoin Cash exists. (110 points, 40 comments)
    4. Blockstream shill admits to exaggerating and slandering Roger purely because he doesn't support BTC. (103 points, 49 comments)
    5. Cognitive Dissonance: It's totally fine to call BCH 'bcash', but it's fraudulent to call it Bitcoin? (93 points, 51 comments)
    6. Be Cash! (78 points, 45 comments)
  17. 1029 points, 7 submissions: zhell_
    1. MEMO NOW SUPPORTS REPLIES, join the Party now ! (208 points, 50 comments)
    2. memo.cash has been generating 2000 tx/day since its start, which is near 10% of all transactions on the BCH network. (201 points, 73 comments)
    3. "Money comes from being the most tradable of all commodities" Austrian Economics (189 points, 104 comments)
    4. Fiat is crashing: Inflation in the US averages at 10%/year in the past 5 years when measured as the price of the top 500 items on which Americans spend their after-tax dollars. (183 points, 49 comments)
    5. Memo.cash breaks a record with 3000 on-chain actions in the last 24h after implementing replies (143 points, 25 comments)
    6. with 2k tx/day, memo.cash is only using ~0.09% of 8MB blocks capacity currently on the BCH network (that would be 0.02% of 32MB blocks) (69 points, 3 comments)
    7. Help! I bought what I thought was Bitcoin and it is now gone! /s (36 points, 8 comments)
  18. 1020 points, 4 submissions: Anenome5
    1. Let's End the War and focus on the TRUE ENEMY (719 points, 349 comments)
    2. Satoshi's original whitepaper talks about "Reclaiming Disk Space" by pruning transactions, what's being done on this front? Core-trolls say we don't need to store forever that you bought a coffee, and that's true, and Satoshi also proposed how to fix that long ago. (200 points, 166 comments)
    3. Core'er says $50 fees "a wtf moment for everyone" but doubts it will ever happen again. Seems they're in for a surprise, BTC is still extremely vulnerable to transaction-fee price-inflation due to low capacity. BTC transaction fees currently 19+ times higher than BCH. (65 points, 30 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Cash, the early years... [OC] (36 points, 16 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (3904 points, 368 comments)
  2. Kain_niaK (3058 points, 684 comments)
  3. bambarasta (2674 points, 360 comments)
  4. H0dl (2352 points, 464 comments)
  5. rdar1999 (2352 points, 404 comments)
  6. BitttBurger (2301 points, 313 comments)
  7. Adrian-X (2118 points, 506 comments)
  8. MemoryDealers (2084 points, 102 comments)
  9. trolldetectr (2073 points, 502 comments)
  10. LexGrom (2055 points, 709 comments)
  11. Ant-n (1834 points, 334 comments)
  12. LovelyDay (1820 points, 468 comments)
  13. jimbtc (1734 points, 212 comments)
  14. fruitsofknowledge (1618 points, 469 comments)
  15. ForkiusMaximus (1612 points, 211 comments)
  16. unstoppable-cash (1537 points, 201 comments)
  17. unitedstatian (1485 points, 388 comments)
  18. jonald_fyookball (1481 points, 142 comments)
  19. Bitcoinopoly (1471 points, 175 comments)
  20. BeijingBitcoins (1430 points, 100 comments)
  21. KoKansei (1330 points, 84 comments)
  22. MobTwo (1309 points, 93 comments)
  23. btcnewsupdates (1263 points, 153 comments)
  24. lubokkanev (1252 points, 298 comments)
  25. BitcoinXio (1251 points, 76 comments)
  26. taipalag (1248 points, 250 comments)
  27. mrtest001 (1075 points, 271 comments)
  28. LuxuriousThrowAway (1072 points, 163 comments)
  29. MarchewkaCzerwona (1046 points, 119 comments)
  30. cbeaks (985 points, 175 comments)
  31. SharkLaserrrrr (976 points, 135 comments)
  32. tippr (974 points, 523 comments)
  33. knight222 (963 points, 132 comments)
  34. PsyRev_ (941 points, 189 comments)
  35. radmege (919 points, 62 comments)
  36. Anenome5 (914 points, 182 comments)
  37. Churn (886 points, 75 comments)
  38. 324JL (855 points, 200 comments)
  39. emergent_reasons (854 points, 143 comments)
  40. TiagoTiagoT (841 points, 320 comments)
  41. bahkins313 (831 points, 121 comments)
  42. silverjustice (825 points, 62 comments)
  43. cryptorebel (812 points, 148 comments)
  44. scotty321 (811 points, 121 comments)
  45. DaSpawn (808 points, 113 comments)
  46. homopit (795 points, 100 comments)
  47. AcerbLogic (786 points, 205 comments)
  48. normal_rc (777 points, 59 comments)
  49. fiah84 (774 points, 136 comments)
  50. Deadbeat1000 (753 points, 61 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. No spend by ocist1121 (1189 points, 87 comments)
  2. 1 For whoever questions the utility of Bitcoin, here's banking summarized accurately by rlibec (783 points, 163 comments)
  3. Let's End the War and focus on the TRUE ENEMY by Anenome5 (719 points, 349 comments)
  4. Am I the only one that doesn't mind Bitcoin Cash being called "Bitcoin Cash" instead of just "Bitcoin" (for now)? by d3on (672 points, 401 comments)
  5. Warren Buffet's Berkshire is the single largest stockholder in BoA and WellsFargo. In case you were wondering about his attitude towards Bitcoin. by hunk_quark (614 points, 114 comments)
  6. MortuusBestia hits on a pitch-perfect way of looking at BCH's value proposition in epic comment on /BitcoinMarkets by ForkiusMaximus (604 points, 109 comments)
  7. coincall.io labels BCH a "shitcoin" by groovymash (586 points, 329 comments)
  8. Erik Voorhees: “Roger - please stop referencing me to back up your opinion that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. It isn't. Bitcoin is the chain originating from the genesis block with the highest accumulated proof of work. The Bitcoin Cash fork failed to gain majority, thus it is not Bitcoin.” by sumsaph (585 points, 547 comments)
  9. Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate.. by VanquishAudio (581 points, 113 comments)
  10. Bitcoin Cash is upgrading on May 15 to 32MB max block limit by BitcoinXio (575 points, 335 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 322 points: rdar1999's comment in My dog ate my TREZOR. Check your recovery seeds folks!
  2. 314 points: my_next_account's comment in Erik Voorhees: “Roger - please stop referencing me to back up your opinion that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. It isn't. Bitcoin is the chain originating from the genesis block with the highest accumulated proof of work. The Bitcoin Cash fork failed to gain majority, thus it is not Bitcoin.”
  3. 259 points: everyother's comment in 1 For whoever questions the utility of Bitcoin, here's banking summarized accurately
  4. 225 points: morli's comment in Can’t believe this was available. My new license plate..
  5. 209 points: groovymash's comment in coincall.io labels BCH a "shitcoin"
  6. 206 points: insanityzwolf's comment in Am I the only one that doesn't mind Bitcoin Cash being called "Bitcoin Cash" instead of just "Bitcoin" (for now)?
  7. 183 points: BitttBurger's comment in MoneyTrigz fails to raise more than $3,700 for Bitcoin.com lawsuit. Considers pulling the plug.
  8. 182 points: patrick99e99's comment in I used to think BCH was the bad guy, now I'm beginning to change the way I see it... Convince me that BCH is the real Bitcoin
  9. 175 points: RollieMe's comment in Trying to see both sides of the scaling debate
  10. 156 points: KillerDr3w's comment in My dog ate my TREZOR. Check your recovery seeds folks!
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Nobody has been able to convincingly answer the question, "What should the optimal block size limit be?" And the reason nobody has been able to answer that question is the same reason nobody has been able to answer the question, "What should the price today be?" – /u/tsontar

https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xcqgs/pieter_wuille_i_dont_see_any_plan_jeff_garzik_yes/cy3kb5p
Nobody has been able to convincingly answer the question, "what should the optimal block size limit be?"
And the reason nobody has been able to answer the question is the same reason nobody has been able to answer the question, "what should the price today be?"
And this is because "the price of a Bitcoin today" and "the ideal threshold at which we should consider this particular block to have 'too many transactions'" are both fundamentally questions of economics, not engineering, because at the root lies the basic issue of supply (block space) vs demand (transactions) which cannot be predicted or engineered away.
tsontar
By the way, tsontar tends to contribute a lot over at /BitcoinMarkets - which is probably why he is the one who was able to bring us this fresh bit of pragmatic economic wisdom transcending so much of the pointless engineering discussions we've been subjected to in the never-ending blocksize debate for the past year.
Bitcoin blocksize and Bitcoin price are both economic issues, not engineering issues.
This is why the blocksize debate keep gong nowhere, despite all the various BIPs.
It is pure ego and hubris for devs to think they need to hard-code a number which the market can and should (and indeed already does [1]) decide perfectly well on its own, without any meddling from them.
[1] Evidence: The market (of miners) has already been setting its own "soft" blocksize limit this entire time (typically well under the current 1 MB max introduced as a temporary anti-spam kludge), based on their ongoing, dynamic calculations on how to avoid orphaning.
And it is worth repeating that Satoshi Nakamoto himself (who evidently knew a thing or two about game theory and economics) did not want a max blocksize:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wo9pb/satoshi_nakamoto_october_04_2010_074840_pm_it_can/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-11-12)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer and I'd have problems coding "hello world!", so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. Like any other write-up it likely contains personal biases, although I try to stay as neutral as I can. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, so if I say "everyone agrees" this means everyone present in the meeting, that's not consensus, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. The dev IRC and mailinglist are for bitcoin development purposes. If you have not contributed actual code to a bitcoin-implementation, this is probably not the place you want to reach out to. There are many places to discuss things that the developers read, including this sub-reddit.
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
transaction priority for 0.12 Opt-in replace-by-fee Versionbits Chain limits
transaction priority for 0.12
Each transaction is assigned a priority, determined by the age, size, and number of inputs. Which currently makes some transactions free. This currently has a large amount of code, which makes it harder to maintain, and is not that optimal since you can't expect miners to include 0-fee transactions.
Most people seem fine with removing priority in the mempool, but people should be notified ahead of time this is coming. sdaftuar proposed a staggered approach, setting the default value for priority to 0, and remove it entirely in the next release. petertodd notes there will be a natural staggered process since not everyone will upgrade to 0.12 instantly and some implementations might not remove priority at all. Most wallet-software outside of bitcoin-core don't implement priority calculations. As fee estimation becomes more important and many wallet providers use the bitcoin-core fee estimation, improvements on that are welcome. Luke-Jr doesn't agree with removing priority, particularly with changing the mining code to use the priority a transaction has when it enters the mempool. Sipa has the idea to add a small fraction of bitcoin days destroyed divided by the average UTXO age to the fee, so that non-spam-attack transactions are viewed as if they have a larger fee.
While most agree with the proposal to remove the current priority, there's still much debate on whether it needs to be replaced for 0.13, and if so, how.
Review "Improve usage of fee estimation code" BlueMatt will mail the developer mailinglist announcing the changes. ( https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02790.html )
Opt-in replace-by-fee
Currently when a node sees a transaction that spends the same output it ignores it. With replace-by-fee it replaces the current transaction in the mempool if it has a higher fee. This allows for things like spending "stuck" transactions, adding more recipients to a transaction in order to prevent chaining, etc.
Since there are people that accept 0-confirmation transactions and this would make it extremely easy to double spend them, this is made opt-in. The sender can choose to opt-in to replace-by-fee by changing an input in the nSequence field.
Peter Todd wrote some tools to use replace-by-fee. link It would be nice to have opt-in per output instead of the whole transaction, however that would be very hard to implement and would have some privacy concerns. Luke-Jr would like to see an option to toggle between first-seen-safe/full RBF and neveopt-in/always. Since there are possibly some objections with the "always" toggle it should be a separate pull-request.
review and merge nSequence-based Full-RBF opt-in Peter Todd will write a mail to the list to explain how it works and how people can not accept opt-in transactions.
Versionbits
BIP 9 Currently softforks have been done by the isSuperMajority mechanism, meaning when 95% of the last X blocks has a version number higher than Y the fork is deployed. A new way of doing this is currently being worked on and that uses all bits of the version number, appropriately being called versionbits. So instead of a fork happening when the version is larger than (for example) 00000000011 (3), a fork happens when (for example) the 3rd bit is up (so 00100000011). This way softforks can be deployed simultaneous and independent of each other.
There are 2 different implementations. One from Codeshark and one from Rusty jtimon thinks both implementations are more complicated than they need to be. There needs to be a minor revision namely a starting time for proposals. In general we'd like to get this in soon, but existing softforks need to complete first.
CodeShark adds a starting time to versionbits.
Chain limits
Chain in this context means connected transactions. When you send a transaction that depends on another transaction that has yet to be confirmed we talk about a chain of transactions. Miners ideally take the whole chain into account instead of just every single transaction (although that's not widely implemented afaik). So while a single transaction might not have a sufficient fee, a depending transaction could have a high enough fee to make it worthwhile to mine both. This is commonly known as child-pays-for-parent. Since you can make these chains very big it's possible to clog up the mempool this way. With the recent malleability attacks, anyone who made transactions going multiple layers deep would've already encountered huge problems doing this (beautifully explained in let's talk bitcoin #258 from 13:50 onwards) Proposal and github link.
Wumpus doesn't feel comfortable with merging it because there's some controversy from companies who exceed the limits (or could be/want to). jgarzik does feel comfortable with it, and many think it should be merged as it's easy to revert if needed. There's little choice as it's not safe from attacks without limits. We should communicate the replace-by-fee sendmany alternative to long chains (adding new recipients on existing non-confirmed transactions), although it won't show up in users wallet yet and block-explorers probably aren't ready to display it correctly. Emphasis on the fact it's a change in default values, not a consensus change, however default values have a lot of power. The final limits are 25 transactions and 101kb total size for both ancestor and descendant packages.
jgarzik will merge the pull-request. Morcos will mail the list once it's merged.
Participants
BlueMatt Matt Corallo petertodd Peter Todd morcos Alex Morcos jgarzik Jeff Garzik gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr jtimon Jorge Timón btcdrak btcdrak phantomcircuit Patrick Strateman sipa Pieter Wuille CodeShark Eric Lombrozo sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar jg_taxi jg_taxi gavinandresen Gavin Andresen cfields Cory Fields bsm1175321 Bob McElrath 
Comic relief
19:53 sipa new topic? 19:53 wumpus any other topics? 19:53 petertodd  19:53 jgarzik did we cover jonas while I was in the taxi? 19:54 sdaftuar ? 19:54 jtimon ? 19:54 CodeShark not sure I want to know 19:54 jgarzik proposal for new GUI maintainer 19:54 CodeShark sounds kinky, though 19:54 petertodd CodeShark: GUI's are pretty kinky 19:56 BlueMatt ok, end meeting? 19:56 btcdrak if we can remember the command this week :-) 19:56 wumpus #meetingend 19:56 gmaxwell #destroymeeting 19:56 wumpus #endmeeting 19:56 Luke-Jr #endmeeting 19:56 lightningbot Meeting ended Thu Nov 12 19:56:42 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) 19:56 BlueMatt #magicmeetbotincantation 19:57 petertodd #DoWhatIMean 
submitted by G1lius to btc [link] [comments]

[bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase

Message: 5 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:18:19 -0400 From: Gavin Andresen To: Johnathan Corgan Cc: [email protected] Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase
I promised to write a BIP after I'd implemented increase-the-maximum-block-size code, so here it is. It also lives at: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-8MB.mediawiki
I don't expect any proposal to please everybody; there are unavoidable tradeoffs to increasing the maximum block size. I prioritize implementation simplicity -- it is hard to write consensus-critical code, so simpler is better.
BIP: ?? Title: Increase Maximum Block Size Author: Gavin Andresen Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 2015-06-22
==Abstract==
This BIP proposes replacing the fixed one megabyte maximum block size with a maximum size that grows over time at a predictable rate.
==Motivation==
Transaction volume on the Bitcoin network has been growing, and will soon reach the one-megabyte-every-ten-minutes limit imposed by the one megabyte maximum block size. Increasing the maximum size reduces the impact of that limit on Bitcoin adoption and growth.
==Specification==
After deployment on the network (see the Deployment section for details), the maximum allowed size of a block on the main network shall be calculated based on the timestamp in the block header.
The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 1452470400), and shall double every 63,072,000 seconds (two years, ignoring leap years), until 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 2083190400). The maximum size of blocks in between doublings will increase linearly based on the block's timestamp. The maximum size of blocks after 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC shall be 8,192,000,000 bytes.
Expressed in pseudo-code, using integer math:
function max_block_size(block_timestamp): time_start = 1452470400 time_double = 60*60*24*365*2 size_start = 8000000 if block_timestamp >= time_start+time_double*10 return size_start * 2^10 // Piecewise-linear-between-doublings growth: time_delta = block_timestamp - t_start doublings = time_delta / time_double remainder = time_delta % time_double interpolate = (size_start * 2^doublings * remainder) / time_double max_size = size_start * 2^doublings + interpolate return max_size 
==Deployment==
Deployment shall be controlled by hash-power supermajority vote (similar to the technique used in BIP34), but the earliest possible activation time is 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC.
Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with bits 3 and 14 set (0x20000004 in hex). The activation time will be the timestamp of the 750'th block plus a two week (1,209,600 second) grace period to give any remaining miners or services time to upgrade to support larger blocks. If a supermajority is achieved more than two weeks before 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC, the activation time will be 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC.
Block version numbers are used only for activation; once activation is achieved, the maximum block size shall be as described in the specification section, regardless of the version number of the block.
==Rationale==
The initial size of 8,000,000 bytes was chosen after testing the current reference implementation code with larger block sizes and receiving feedback from miners stuck behind bandwidth-constrained networks (in particular, Chinese miners behind the Great Firewall of China).
The doubling interval was chosen based on long-term growth trends for CPU power, storage, and Internet bandwidth. The 20-year limit was chosen because exponential growth cannot continue forever.
Calculations are based on timestamps and not blockchain height because a timestamp is part of every block's header. This allows implementations to know a block's maximum size after they have downloaded it's header, but before downloading any transactions.
The deployment plan is taken from Jeff Garzik's proposed BIP100 block size increase, and is designed to give miners, merchants, and full-node-running-end-users sufficient time to upgrade to software that supports bigger blocks. A 75% supermajority was chosen so that one large mining pool does not have effective veto power over a blocksize increase. The version number scheme is designed to be compatible with Pieter's Wuille's proposed "Version bits" BIP.
TODO: summarize objections/arguments from http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks.
TODO: describe other proposals and their advantages/disadvantages over this proposal.
==Compatibility==
This is a hard-forking change to the Bitcoin protocol; anybody running code that fully validates blocks must upgrade before the activation time or they will risk rejecting a chain containing larger-than-one-megabyte blocks.
Simplified Payment Verification software is not affected, unless it makes assumptions about the maximum depth of a transaction's merkle branch based on the minimum size of a transaction and the maximum block size.
==Implementation==
https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/tree/blocksize_fork
bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 1, Issue 13
submitted by bitsko to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase | Gavin Andresen | Jun 22 2015

Gavin Andresen on Jun 22 2015:
I promised to write a BIP after I'd implemented
increase-the-maximum-block-size code, so here it is. It also lives at:
https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-8MB.mediawiki
I don't expect any proposal to please everybody; there are unavoidable
tradeoffs to increasing the maximum block size. I prioritize implementation
simplicity -- it is hard to write consensus-critical code, so simpler is
better.
BIP: ??
Title: Increase Maximum Block Size
Author: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2015-06-22
==Abstract==
This BIP proposes replacing the fixed one megabyte maximum block size with
a maximum size that grows over time at a predictable rate.
==Motivation==
Transaction volume on the Bitcoin network has been growing, and will soon
reach the one-megabyte-every-ten-minutes limit imposed by the one megabyte
maximum block size. Increasing the maximum size reduces the impact of that
limit on Bitcoin adoption and growth.
==Specification==
After deployment on the network (see the Deployment section for details),
the maximum allowed size of a block on the main network shall be calculated
based on the timestamp in the block header.
The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11
00:00:00 UTC (timestamp 1452470400), and shall double every 63,072,000
seconds (two years, ignoring leap years), until 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC
(timestamp 2083190400). The maximum size of blocks in between doublings
will increase linearly based on the block's timestamp. The maximum size of
blocks after 2036-01-06 00:00:00 UTC shall be 8,192,000,000 bytes.
Expressed in pseudo-code, using integer math:
function max_block_size(block_timestamp): time_start = 1452470400 time_double = 60*60*24*365*2 size_start = 8000000 if block_timestamp >= time_start+time_double*10 return size_start * 2^10 // Piecewise-linear-between-doublings growth: time_delta = block_timestamp - t_start doublings = time_delta / time_double remainder = time_delta % time_double interpolate = (size_start * 2^doublings * remainder) / time_double max_size = size_start * 2^doublings + interpolate return max_size 
==Deployment==
Deployment shall be controlled by hash-power supermajority vote (similar to
the technique used in BIP34), but the earliest possible activation time is
2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC.
Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best
chain have a version number with bits 3 and 14 set (0x20000004 in hex). The
activation time will be the timestamp of the 750'th block plus a two week
(1,209,600 second) grace period to give any remaining miners or services
time to upgrade to support larger blocks. If a supermajority is achieved
more than two weeks before 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC, the activation time
will be 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC.
Block version numbers are used only for activation; once activation is
achieved, the maximum block size shall be as described in the specification
section, regardless of the version number of the block.
==Rationale==
The initial size of 8,000,000 bytes was chosen after testing the current
reference implementation code with larger block sizes and receiving
feedback from miners stuck behind bandwidth-constrained networks (in
particular, Chinese miners behind the Great Firewall of China).
The doubling interval was chosen based on long-term growth trends for CPU
power, storage, and Internet bandwidth. The 20-year limit was chosen
because exponential growth cannot continue forever.
Calculations are based on timestamps and not blockchain height because a
timestamp is part of every block's header. This allows implementations to
know a block's maximum size after they have downloaded it's header, but
before downloading any transactions.
The deployment plan is taken from Jeff Garzik's proposed BIP100 block size
increase, and is designed to give miners, merchants, and
full-node-running-end-users sufficient time to upgrade to software that
supports bigger blocks. A 75% supermajority was chosen so that one large
mining pool does not have effective veto power over a blocksize increase.
The version number scheme is designed to be compatible with Pieter's
Wuille's proposed "Version bits" BIP.
TODO: summarize objections/arguments from
http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks.
TODO: describe other proposals and their advantages/disadvantages over this
proposal.
==Compatibility==
This is a hard-forking change to the Bitcoin protocol; anybody running code
that fully validates blocks must upgrade before the activation time or they
will risk rejecting a chain containing larger-than-one-megabyte blocks.
Simplified Payment Verification software is not affected, unless it makes
assumptions about the maximum depth of a transaction's merkle branch based
on the minimum size of a transaction and the maximum block size.
==Implementation==
https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/tree/blocksize_fork
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150622/15ca6d1f/attachment-0001.html>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009000.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report | Jeff Garzik | Sep 16 2015

Jeff Garzik on Sep 16 2015:
During Scaling Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core committers and notable contributors
got together and chatted about where a "greatest common denominator" type
consensus might be. The following is a without-attribution (Chatham House)
summary. This is my own personal summary of the chat; any errors are my
own; this is not a consensus statement or anything formal.
transaction size within block by applying a delta to transaction size based
on the amount of data added, or removed, from the UTXO set. Fee is then
evaluated after the delta is applied. This aligns user incentives with
UTXO resource usage/cost. Original idea by gmaxwell (and others??).
fork to modify block size limit regime to be cost-based via "net-utxo"
rather than a simple static hard limit. 2-4-8 and 17%/year were debated
and seemed "in range" with what might work as a short term bump - net after
applying the new cost metric.
fork Y months in the future. Set high bit in version, resulting in a
negative number, to more cleanly fork away. "miner advisement" - miners,
as they've done recently, signal non-binding (Bitcoin Core does not examine
the value) engineering readiness for a hard fork via coinbase moniker.
Some fork cancellation method is useful, if unsuccessful after Z time
elapses.
a bit in version, and then triggering a fork'ing change once a threshold is
reached.
Chat participants are invited to reply to this message with their own
corrections and comments and summary in their view.
For the wider community, take this as one of many "inputs" described at
Scaling Bitcoin. Over the next few months developers and the community
should evaluate everything discussed and work towards some concrete
proposal(s) that are implemented, tested and simulated in December in Hong
Kong.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150916/b53805a1/attachment.html>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011031.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin: A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until here we are today at $15000.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud