www.bitcoin.name

No way! If Theymos of BSCore can manipulate useful idiots to control Bitcoin, then SeekingAlpha could literally control the whole stock market. /r/btc

No way! If Theymos of BSCore can manipulate useful idiots to control Bitcoin, then SeekingAlpha could literally control the whole stock market. /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The owners of Blockstream are spending $75 million to do a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin by manipulating the Core devs & the Chinese miners. This is cheap compared to the $ trillions spent on the wars on Iraq & Libya - who also defied the Fed / PetroDollar / BIS private central banking cartel.

At this point, that's really the simplest "Occam's razor" explanation for Blockstream's "irrational" behavior.
Once you let go of your irrational belief that Blockstream's owners actually want to get a "return" on their $75 million investment, from "innovations" such as sidechains technology (Lightning Network - LN) - only then will you be able to see that Blockstream's apparently "irrational" behavior is actually perfectly rational.
They say their goal is to "get rich" from LN. And if you believe that, I have a Dogecoin I'd like to sell you.
What are the real goals of Blockstream's owners?
Blockstream's owners don't give a fuck about the Rube Goldberg vaporware which some focus group christened "the Lightning Network". That name is just there to placate the masses of noobs who congregate on /bitcoin.
The owners of Blockstream are laughing at Adam Back as he continues to labor in isolation, the stereotypical math PhD who is clueless about economics, toiling away creating a slow, overpriced, centralized "level 2" payment layer on top of Bitcoin - a complicated contraption which may never work. They have neutralized him - but meanwhile, he thinks he's a rock star now, as "CEO of Blockstream". Little does he know he is the worst "collaborator" of all.
Investors are risk-averse
If Blockstream's owners really wanted to get rich from LN, do you really think they would freeze the "max blocksize" at 1 MB for the next year, when this 1-year freeze obviously risks destroying Bitcoin itself (along with their investment)?
Investors are not stupid - and they are risk-averse. They know that if there's no Bitcoin, then there's no Lightning - so their $75 million investment would go out the window.
And all the "Core" devs have actually gone on the record stating (in their less-guarded moments, or before they signed their employment contracts with Blockstream) that 2 MB blocks would work fine - even 3-4 MB blocks. Empirical research by miners has shown that 3-4 MB blocks - or even bigger - would work fine right now.
So why aren't the Blockstream investors pressuring the Core devs to go to 2 MB now, to remove the risk of Bitcoin failing?
If Blockstream did the "rational" thing and agreed to 2 MB now, the price would shoot up, the community would heal, innovation would start happening again. Bitcoin would proper, and Blockstream's investors would have a good chance at making a "return" on their investment.
For some reason, Blockstream's investors are trying to stop all this from happening. So we have to look for a different explanation. If the owners of Blockstream don't want to get rich from the Lightning Network, then what do they really want?
The simplest explanation is that the real risk which Blockstream's investors are "averse" to is the possibility of trillions of dollars in legacy fiat suddenly plunging in relative value, if Bitcoin were to shoot to the moon. They're afraid they'll lose power if Bitcoin succeeds.
In order to provide some support for this radical but simple hypothesis, we have to dive into some pretty nasty and shadowy geopolitics.
What do the wars on Iraq and Syria, JPMorgan's naked short selling of silver, and the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" all have in common?
Whenever a currency tries to compete with the Fed / Petrollar / BIS [1] private central banking cartel, the legacy fiat power élite destroys that currency (if the currency has a central point of control - which Bitcoin does have: the Core devs, the Chinese miners, and Theymos).
[1] BIS = the Bank for International Settlements, often referred to as "the central bank of central banks"
Trillions of dollars were spent to take down the central banks of Iraq and Libya, because they defied the hegemony of the Fed / Petrodollar / BIS private central banking cartel.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ellen+brown+iraq+libya+bis
And while you're googling, you might want to look up whistleblower Andrew Maguire (who exposed how JPMorgan uses naked short selling to "dump" nonexistent silver in order to prevent the USDollar from collapsing).
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=andrew+maguire+jpmorgan
And you might also want to look up John Perkins, whose book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" is another major eye-opener about how "the Washington consensus" manages to rule the world by printing fiat backed by violence and justified by "experts" and propaganda.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=john+perkins+confessions+economic+hit+man
That's just how the world works - although you have to do a bit of research to discover those unpleasant facts.
So for the legacy fiat power élite, $75 million to take down Bitcoin (and maintain their power) is chump change in comparison.
You all knew that "they" were going to try to destroy Bitcoin, didn't you?
Even Jamie Dimon practically admitted as much.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jamie+dimon+bitcoin
Did you really think they would be clumsy enough to try to ban it outright?
Private central bankers run this planet, and they have never hesitated to use their lethal combination of guns, debt and psyops to maintain their power. They pay for the wars, they keep people enslaved to debt, and they dumb down the population so nobody knows what's really going on.
Print up a trillion dollars here, kill a million people there, brainwash everyone with censorship and propaganda. That's their modus operandi.
So we shouldn't be surprised if they they ruthlessly and covertly try to take down Bitcoin. They have the means and the motivation.
It was only a matter of time before they identified the three weakest centralized points in the Bitcoin system:
And so that's where they applied the pressure.
I'm sorry to be rude, but all three of those players listed above are idiot savants / sitting ducks up against the full-spectrum of covert dirty tricks deployed by the legacy fiat power élite - whether it's money, ego-stroking, or pretending to go along with their crazy cypherpunk beliefs that Bitcoin will only prosper as long as it remains small enough to run a node on a dial-up internet on a Raspberri Pi in Luke-Jr's basement.
So the simplest explanation is this: Blockstream is a "front company" which has been established for the purpose of performing a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin.
So Satoshi messed up. He messed up by baking in a 1 MB constant into the code at the last minute as a clumsy anti-spam kludge - which could unfortunately only be removed via a hard fork - and which the global legacy power élite have figured how to retain via social engineering directed at clueless Core devs and clueless Chinese miners (and clueless forum moderators).
So why is the price is still fairly stable?
Heck, I'm so paranoid, I wouldn't even put it past them to try to interfere with investors who might otherwise be trying to send a signal by "voting with their feet".
In other words, several observers have commented that the only way to liberate Bitcoin from the cartel of Chinese miners and Core/Blockstream devs is to crash the price.
And many other observers are puzzled that the price isn't crashing now that Bitcoin is being strangled in its cradle by Blockstream.
Well, this wouldn't be the first time that the Fed / PetroDollar / BIS private central banking cartel sent in the "plunge protection" team to artificially prop up their fragile, centralized, permissioned currency.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=plunge+protection+team
Who knows, they could easily have printed up a few million dollars in phoney fiat and given it to players like Jamie Dimon or Blythe Masters who probably have access to the HFT (high frequency trading) tools to keep the price exactly where they want it, for as long as they want it. Manipulating an unregulated $6 billion market would be child's play for them.
The point is, we have no idea who is buying bitcoins at this price right now. Or what their motives are.
I know that if I were part of the legacy fiat power élite, this is exactly what I'd be doing now: buy off the devs, pressure the miners, encourage the censors, and play with the price - so nobody knows what the hell is going on. Prevent the price from crashing for the next year (so the community won't have a "smoking gun" to reject the Core devs and the Chinese miners)... and prevent it from going to the moon also (so the dollar won't look like it's crashing). Not too hard to do, especially if you have unlimited fiat at your disposal.
2016 is the perfect time to perform a "controlled demolition" on Bitcoin.
All the forces in the global economy are now aligned for a massive economic storm of epic proportions. Without Blockstream's interference, Bitcoin's price would be shooting to the moon right now, because it's the only digital asset class free of counterparty risk, compared to all the other garbage floating around in the system:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=deutsche+bank+lehman
https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/45ogx7/daily_discussion_sunday_february_14_2016/d0015vf
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china+capital+flight
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=NIRP+Negative+Interest+Rate+Policy
Bitcoin is one of the only safe harbors in this oncoming economic storm. So it should be skyrocketing right now - if there were no artificial constraints on its growth.
So if Blockstream were not doing a controlled demolition of Bitcoin right now by freezing the blocksize to 1 MB for the next year, then the Bitcoin price could easily go to 4,000 USD - instead languishing around 400 USD.
In other words: the USDollar would be crashing 10-fold versus Bitcoin.
The only bulwark against Bitcoin rising 10x versus the USDollar is Blockstream's stranglehold on the Core devs and the Chinese miners.
Just like the only bulwark against precious metals rising 10x versus the USDollar right now is JPMorgan's naked short selling of phoney (paper) precious metals, mainly via the SLV ETF (exchange traded fund).
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jpmorgan+naked+short+selling+slv
(Most informed estimates say that there is 100x more "fake" or "paper" gold and silver in existence, versus "physical" gold and silver. So it's easy for JPMorgan to suppress the silver price: just naked-short-sell "paper" silver. They do this as a service to the Fed, to prop up the dollar. And your tax dollars pay for this fraud.)
The silence of the devs
Isn't it strange how not a single Blockstream dev dares to "break ranks" on the 2 MB taboo?
This unanimous code of silence among Blockstream devs speaks volumes.
Devs on open-source projects like this (particularly ones which were founded on principles of "permissionless" "decentralization") would never maintain this kind of uniform code of developer silence - especially when their precious open-source project is on the verge of failing.
Most devs are rebels - especially Bitcoin devs - ready to break ranks at the drop of a hat, and propose their brilliant ideas to save the day.
But right now - utter silence.
This bizarre code of silence which we are now seeing from the "Core" devs must be the result of some major behind-the-scenes arm-twisting by the owners of Blocsktream, who must have made it abundantly clear that any dev who attempts to provide a simple on-chain scaling solution will be severely punished - financially, legally and/or socially.
Blockstream has deliberately set Bitcoin on a suicide course right now - and all the devs there are silently complicit - and so are the Chinese miners who submissively bowed down to Blockstream's stalling "scaling" roadmap.
But I don't really blame the devs and the miners. I feel bad for them.
I'm not really "blaming" any Chinese miners for being used like this - nor am I really "blaming" devs such as Adam Back, Greg Maxwell, etc.
Nor do I really "blame" guys like Austin Hill.
And I even think guys like Theymos and Luke-Jr "mean well".
They're all just being played. They think they're doing the right thing. Their arguments are genuine and heart-felt. Wrong, but heart-felt. This is what makes them so dangerous - because they really sound sincere and convincing. This is why they are the perfect pawns for the owners of Blockstream to play like this.
Subtle coercion
We recently found out that they locked the Chinese miners in a room for 13 hours until 3 AM to force them to sign an "agreement" to never use any code from a competing Bitcoin implementation that would increase the blocksize.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46tv22/only_emperors_kings_and_dictators_demand_fealty/
Have you ever seen this kind of coercion in an open-source project - an open-source project founded on the principles of "permissionless" "decentralization" - where many of the founders were "cypherpunks"??
The miners and the devs - and Theymos - and guys like Austin Hill - all are passionate about Bitcoin, and they all believe they are doing "the right thing".
But they are being manipulated, without their knowledge, by the real power behind Blockstream.
Prisoners in a golden cage
Strange how we never get to hear what really goes on behind closed doors at Blockstream. We never get to see the PowerPoint decks, we never get to find out who said what. Blockstream's public messaging is tightly controlled.
If Bitcoin were to have a "core" dev team, it should have had something like the Mozilla Group, or the Tor Project - non-profits, who answer to the public, not to private investors. Instead we got Blockstream - a private company funded by some of the biggest players of the legacy fiat power élite. WTF?!?
If they wanted to develop sidechains and LN, then fine, they should be able to. But what they're really doing is radically changing Bitcoin itself - mainly by freezing growth at 1 MB blocks now, which is choking the system.
Depite all this, I still would not go so far as to say that the Core devs and the Chinese miners are really "traitors". At most, they are actually prisoners in a golden cage, who are not even really conscious of their own imprisonment. They're smart people - and in some ways, smart people are actually easier to fool, once you figure out what they believe in.
So this is what I really think the owners of Blockstream have done. They've figured out how to manipulate the Core devs and the Chinese miners - and they're happy that Theymos is playing along, censoring the main online forums - so they're able to move ahead with their plan to do a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin, and it only cost them $75 million dollars.
Centralization got us into this mess.
The only reason Bitcoin is vulnerable to this kind of "controlled demolition" being performed by the owners of Blockstream is because mining operations and dev teams are centralized - thus providing a single, vulnerable point where the legacy fiat power élite could easily deploy their full-spectrum attack.
We finally have a digital asset with no counterparty risk - and they want to take it away from us, so that we continue to depend on their debt-backed, violence-backed legacy fiat.
And they're able to do this because the Core devs and the Chinese miners and Theymos were such easy gullible centralized targets.
Decentralization will get us out.
If you are a miner or a dev, and if you want Bitcoin to survive, then you must go back to the principles of permissionless decentralization.
Go dark, release some code anonymously.
Release an internal Blockstream PowerPoint deck or some internal Blockstream emails to Wikileaks, exposing what the Blockstream investors are really up to.
Otherwise, Bitcoin is probably going to fail to realize its potential - and we'll have to wait a while for truly decentralized development (and mining, and forums) to possibly create a successor someday.
If you're a hodler, it would be great if such a phoenix rising from Bitcoin would be a "spinoff" - ie, a coin bootstrapped off of the existing ledger (to preserve existing wealth, while upgrading to a new protocol for appending new blocks).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0
But who knows.
submitted by UndergroundNews to btc [link] [comments]

I talked with /r/Bitcoin members where I least wanted to.

ARRRGGGHHH!!
I just wanted to buy good, under $25 stocks from SimpleFX.com, but instead, I walked into the middle of Nazi Germany a one-sided conversation.
For background, I went to /WallStreetBets since I've seen posts of some profitable stocks there. Conveniently, they had a Discord! I am able to talk to day-to-day traders on their experiences!
I wanted to see if anyone was online. I saw someone ask about their Bitcoin Cash from the fork, and how he is considering selling it once prices rise. Good, good, each their own money.
Someone else came in and told him to address BCH by its proper name, "Bcash". I think I let my emotions get the best of me (I think I said, "Dude, it's Bitcoin Cash!" I don't know, though.).
Eventually, the person considering selling their BCH asked me what is /Bitcoin for. I responded, "Bitcoin", following with /BTC being for BCH. I gave him a link to a famous comment detailing Theymos' history on /Bitcoin on why it's that way. He said he'll read it.
The other people (I don't want to be rude and call them trolls) returned and told the person to put up his bull$#!^ censors (ironic, but it is /Bitcoin). The same people then joked about how sensitive I am (which to his credit, I may have been). I asked them if they know why Bitcoin Cash was created in the first place. and they joked how it was the truest Satoshi's vision.
Exhausted, I said, "You joke, but the truth will be right under your noses."
I left. I bought two things worth of trading (probably stocks) from Snapchat. It was between that, AMD, and cryptocurrency values.
submitted by lilfruini to btc [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

JPMorgan suppresses gold & silver prices to prop up the USDollar - via "naked short selling" of GLD & SLV ETFs. Now AXA (which owns $94 million of JPMorgan stock) may be trying to suppress Bitcoin price - via tiny blocks. But AXA will fail - because the market will always "maximize coinholder value"

TL;DR
As a bitcoin user (miner, hodler, investor) you have all the power - simply due to the nature of markets and open-source software. Core/Blockstream, and their owners at AXA, can try to manipulate the market and the software for a while, by paying off devs who prefer tiny blocks, or censoring the news, or conducting endless meetings - but in the end, you know that they have no real control over you, because endless meetings are bullshit, and code and markets are everything.
Bitcoin volume, adoption, blocksize and price have been rising steadily for the past 7 years. And they will continue to do so - with or without the cooperation of Core/Blockstream and the Chinese miners - because just like publicly held corporations always tend to "maximize shareholder value, publicly held cryptocurrencies always tend to "maximize coinholder value".
How much of a position does AXA have in JPMorgan?
AXA currently holds about $94 million in JPMorgan stock.
http://zolmax.com/investing/axa-has-94718000-position-in-jpmorgan-chase-co-jpm/794122.html
https://archive.is/HExxH
Admittedly this is not a whole lot, when you consider that the total of JPMorgan's outstanding shares is currently around USD 3.657 billion.
But still it does provide a suggestive indication of how these big financial firms are all in bed with each other. Plus the leaders of these big financial firms also tend to hang out which each other professionally and socially, and are motivated to protect the overall system of "the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" which allows them to rule the world.
How does JPMorgan use paper GLD and SLV ETFs to suppress the price of physical gold and silver?
As many people know, whistleblower Andrew Maguire exposed the massive criminal scandal where JPMorgan has been fraudulently manipulating gold and silver prices for years.
JPMorgan does this via the SLV and GLD ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds).
The reason they do it is in order to artificially suppress the price of gold and silver using "naked short-selling":
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=andrew+maguire+gata+jpmorgan+nake+short&t=hd&ia=videos
How exactly does JPMorgan manage to commit this kind of massive fraud?
It's easy!
There's actually about 100x more "phantom" or fake silver and gold in existence (in the form of "paper" certificates - SLV and GLD ETFs) - versus actual "physical" gold and silver that you can take delivery on and hold in your hand.
That means that if everyone holding fake/paper SLV & GLD ETF certificates were to suddenly demand "physical delivery" at the same moment, then only 1% of those people would receive actual physical silver and gold - and the rest would get the "equivalent" in dollars. This is all well-known, and clearly spelled out in the fine print of the GLD and SLV ETF contracts.
(This is similar to "fractional reserve" where almost no banks have enough actual money to cover all deposits. This means that if everyone showed up at the bank on the same day and demanded their money, the bank would go bankrupt.)
So, in order to fraudulently suppress the price of gold and silver (and, in turn, prevent the USDollar from crashing), JPMorgan functions as a kind of "bear whale", dumping "phantom" gold and silver on the market in the form of worthless "paper" SLV and GLD ETF certificates, "whenever the need arises" - ie, whenever the US Dollar price starts to drop "too much", and/or whenever the gold and silver prices start to rise "too much".
(This is similar to the "plunge protection team" liquidity providers, who are well-known for preventing stock market crashes, by throwing around their endlessly printed supply of "fantasy fiat", buying up stocks to artificially prevent their prices from crashing. This endless money-printing and market manipulation actually destroys one of the main purposes of capitalism - which is to facilitate "price discovery" in order to reward successful companies and punish unsuccessful ones, to make sure that they actually deliver the goods and services that people need in the real world.)
Is there an ELI5 example of how "naked short selling" works in the real world?
Yes there is!
The following example was originally developed by Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne - who, as many people know, is very passionate about using Bitcoin not only as cash, but also to settle stock trades - because his company Overstock got burned when Wall Street illegally attacked it using naked short selling:
Here's how naked short-selling works: Imagine you travel to a small foreign island on vacation. Instead of going to an exchange office in your hotel to turn your dollars into Island Rubles, the country instead gives you a small printing press and makes you a deal: Print as many Island Rubles as you like, then on the way out of the country you can settle your account. So you take your printing press, print out gigantic quantities of Rubles and start buying goods and services. Before long, the cash you’ve churned out floods the market, and the currency's value plummets. Do this long enough and you'll crack the currency entirely; the loaf of bread that cost the equivalent of one American dollar the day you arrived now costs less than a cent.
With prices completely depressed, you keep printing money and buy everything of value - homes, cars, priceless works of art. You then load it all into a cargo ship and head home. On the way out of the country, you have to settle your account with the currency office. But the Island Rubles you printed are now worthless, so it takes just a handful of U.S. dollars to settle your debt. Arriving home with your cargo ship, you sell all the island riches you bought at a discount and make a fortune.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-naked-swindle-20100405
Why isn't anybody stopping JPMorgan from using "naked short selling" to fraudulently suppress gold and silver prices?
Because "certain people" benefit!
Of course, this "naked short selling" (selling a "phantom" asset which doesn't actually exist in order to suppress the price of the "real" asset) is actually illegal - but JPMorgan is allowed to get away with it, because suppressing the gold and silver price helps prop up the United States and world's major "fantasy fiat" financial institutions - which would be bankrupt without this kind of "artificial life support."
How does suppressing the gold and silver price help governments and banks?
If gold and silver (and Bitcoin!) rose to their actual "fair market value", then the US dollar (and most other national "fiat" currencies) would crash - and many major financial institutions would be exposed as bankrupt. Also, many "derivatives contracts" would default - and only a tiny percentage of defaults would destroy most major financial companies' balance sheets. (For example, see Deutsche Bank - which is may become "the next Lehman", due to having around around $80 trillion in dangerous derivatives exposure.)
So, major financial firms like JPMorgan are highly motivated to prevent a "real" (honest) market from existing for "counterparty-free" assets such as physical gold and silver (and Bitcoin!)
So, JPMorgan fraudulently manipulate the precious-metals market, by flooding it with 100x more "phantom" "silver" and "gold" in the form of worthless GLD and SLV ETF certificates.
Basically, JPMorgan is doing the "dirty work" to keep the US government and its "too-big-to-fail" banks and other financial institutions afloat, on "artificial life support".
Otherwise, without this GLD & SLV ETF "naked short selling" involving market manipulation and fraud, the US government - and most major US financial institutions, as well as many major overseas financial institutions, and most central banks - would all be exposed as bankrupt, once traders and investors discovered the real price of gold and silver.
So, what does this have to do with AXA and Bitcoin?
Just like JPMorgan wants to suppress the price of gold and silver to prop up the USDollar, it is reasonable to assume that AXA and other major financial players probably also want to suppress the price of Bitcoin for the same reasons - in order to postpone the inevitable day when the so-called "assets" on their balance sheets (denominated in US Dollars and other "fantasy fiat" currencies, as well as derivatives) are exposed as being worthless.
Actually, only the motives are the same, while the means would be quite different - ie, certain governments or banks might want to suppress the Bitcoin price - but they wouldn't be able to use "naked short selling" to do it.
As we know, this is because with Bitcoin, people can now simply demand "cryptographic proof" of how many bitcoins are really out there - instead of just "trusting" some auditor claiming there is so much gold and silver in a vault - or "trusting" that a gold bar isn't actually filled with worthless tungsten (which happens to have about the same "molecular weight" as gold, so these kinds of counterfeit gold bars have been a serious problem).
(And, by the way: hopefully it should also be impossible to do "fractional reserve" using "level 2" sidechains such as the Lightning Network - although that still remains to be seen. =)
So, even though it should not be possible to flood the market with "phantom" Bitcoins (since people can always demand "cryptographic proof of reserves"), AXA could instead use a totally different tactic to suppress the price: by suppressing Bitcoin trading volume - explained further below.
Does AXA does actually have the motives to be suppressing the Bitcoin price - right now?
Yes, they do!
As described above, the only thing which gives giant banking and finance companies like JPMorgan and AXA the appearance of solvency is massive accounting fraud and market manipulation.
They use the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" (ie, debt-backed "currency", endlessly printed out of thin air) - and the never-ending carrousel of the worldwide derivatives casino, currently worth around 1.2 quadrillion dollars - to "paper over" their losses, and to prevent anyone from discovering that most major insurance firms like AXA - and most major banks - would already be considered bankrupt, if you counted only their real assets. (This is known as "mark-to-market" - which they hate to do. They much prefer to do "mark-to-model" which some people call "mark-to-fantasy" - ie, fraudulent accounting based on "phantom" assets" and rampant market manipulation.)
So, it is public knowledge that nearly all "too-big-to-fail" financial companies like AXA (and JPMorgan) would be considered bankrupt if their fraudulent accounting practices were exposed - which rely on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" and the "never-ending carrousel of the derivatives casino" to maintain the façade of solvency:
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
Does AXA actually have the means to to be suppressing the Bitcoin price... right now?
Yes, they do!
For example, AXA could decide to support economically ignorant devs like Greg Maxwell (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back (CEO of Blockstream), and the other Core devs who support Blockstream's "roadmap" based on tiny blocks.
Wait - isn't AXA already doing precisely that?
Yes, they are!
As we all know, AXA has invested tens of millions of dollars in Blockstream, and Blockstream is indeed fighting tooth and nail against bigger blocks for Bitcoin.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
So, how would artificially tiny blocks artificially suppress the Bitcoin price?
This is pretty much based on common sense - plus it's also been formalized and roughly quantified in concepts involving networking and economics, such as "Metcalfe's Law".
Metcalfe's Law says pretty much what you'd expect it to say - ie: the more people that use a system, the more valuable that system is.
More precisely: the value of a system is proportional to the square of the number of users in that system - which also makes sense, since when there are N users in a system, the number of connections between them is N*(N - 1)2 which is "on the order of" N squared.
In fact, Metcalfe's Law has been shown to hold for various types of networks and markets - including faxes, internet, national currencies, etc.
Does Metcalfe's Law apply to Bitcoin?
Yes, it does!
The past 7 years of data also indicates - as predicted - that Metcalfe's Law also does indeed apply to Bitcoin as well.
Graphs show that during the 5 years before Blockstream got involved with trying to artificially suppress the Bitcoin price via their policy of artificially tiny blocks, Bitcoin prices were roughly in proportion to the square of the (actual) Bitcoin blocksizes.
Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dfb3bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/
During all those years, actual blocksizes were still low enough to not bump into the artificial "ceiling" of the artificial 1 MB "max blocksize" limit - which, remember, was only there as a temporary anti-spam measure, so it was deliberately set to be much higher than any actual blocksize, and everyone knew that this limit would be removed well before actual blocksizes started getting close to that 1 MB "max blocksize" limit.
But now that Bitcoin volume can't go up due to hitting the artificial "max blocksize" 1 MB limit (unless perhaps some people do bigger-value transactions), Bitcoin price also can't go up either:
Bitcoin's market price is trying to rally, but it is currently constrained by Core/Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit. Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream. The market will always win - either with or without the Chinese miners.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ipb4q/bitcoins_market_price_is_trying_to_rally_but_it/
So what does this all have to do with that meeting in Silicon Valley this weekend, between Core/Blockstream and the Chinese miners?
This latest episode in the never-ending saga of the "Bitcoin blocksize debates" is yet another centralized, non-transparent, invite-only stalling non-scaling, no-industry-invited, no-solutions-allowed, "friendly" meeting being held this weekend - at the very last moment when Blockstream/Core failed to comply with the expiration date for their previous stalling non-scaling non-agreement:
The Fed/FOMC holds meetings to decide on money supply. Core/Blockstream & Chinese miners now hold meetings to decide on money velocity. Both are centralized decision-making. Both are the wrong approach.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vfkpthe_fedfomc_holds_meetings_to_decide_on_money/
So, on the expiration date of the HK stalling / non-scaling non-agreement, Viacoin scammer u/btcdrak calls a meeting with no customer-facing businesses invited (just Chinese miners & Core/Blockstream), and no solutions/agreements allowed, and no transparency (just a transcript from u/kanzure). WTF!?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vgwe7/so_on_the_expiration_date_of_the_hk_stalling/
This disastrous, desperate meeting is the latest example of how Bitcoin's so-called "governance" is being hijacked by some anonymous scammer named u/btcdrak who created a shitcoin called Viacoin and who's a subcontractor for Blockstream - calling yet another last-minute stalling / non-scaling meeting on the expiration date of Core/Blockstream's previous last-minute stalling / non-scaling non-agreement - and this non-scaling meeting is invite-only for Chinese miners and Core/Blockstream (with no actual Bitcoin businesses invited) - and economic idiot u/maaku7 who also brought us yet another shitcoin called Freicoin is now telling us that no actual solutions will be provided because no actual agreements will be allowed - and this invite-only no-industry no-solutions / no-agreements non-event will be manually transcribed by some guy named u/kanzure who hates u/Peter__R (note: u/Peter__R gave us actual solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited and massive on-chain scaling via XThin) - and as usual this invite-only non-scaling no-solutions / no-agreements no-industry invite-only non-event is being paid for by some fantasy fiat finance firm AXA whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group which will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds.**
What is the purpose of this meeting?
The "organizers" and other people involved - u/btcdrak and u/maaku7 - say that this is just a "friendly" meeting - and it is specifically forbidden for any "agreements" (or scaling solutions) to come out of this meeting.
What good is a meeting if no agreements or solutions can some out of it?
Good question!
A meeting where solutions are explicitly prohibited is actually perfect for Blockstream's goals - because currently the status quo "max blocksize" is 1 MB, and they want to keep it that way.
So, they want to leverage the "inertia" to maintain the status quo - while pretending to do something, and getting friendly with the miners (and possibly making them other "offers" or "inducements").
So this meeting is just another stalling tactic, like all the previous ones.
Only now, after the community has seen this over and over, Blockstream has finally had to publicly admit that it is specifically forbidden for any "agreements" (or scaling solutions) to come out of this meeting - which makes it very obvious to everyone that this whole meeting is just an empty gesture.
So, why is this never-ending shit-show still going on?
Mainly due to inertia on the part of many users, and dishonesty on the part of Core/Blockstream devs.
Currently there is a vocal group of 57 devs and wannabe devs who are associated with Core/Blockstream - who refuse to remove the obsolete, temporary anti-spam measure (or "kludge") which historically restricted Bitcoin throughput to a 1 MB "max blocksize".
Somehow (via a combination of media manipulation, domain squatting, censorship, staged international Bitcoin stalling "scaling" meetings and congresses, fraudulent non-agreements, and other dishonest pressure tactics) they've managed to convince everyone that they can somehow dictate to everyone else how Bitcoin governance should be done.
vampireban wants you to believe that "a lot of people voted" and "there is consensus" for Core's "roadmap". But he really means only 57 people voted. And most of them aren't devs and/or don't understand markets. Satoshi designed Bitcoin for the economic majority to vote - not just 57 people.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ecx69/uvampireban_wants_you_to_believe_that_a_lot_of/
Meanwhile, pretty much everyone else in Bitcoin - ie, everyone who's not involved with Blockstream - knows that Bitcoin can and should have bigger blocks by now, to enable increased adoption, volume, and price, as shown by the following points:
(1) Most miners, and investors, and Satoshi himself, all expected Bitcoin to have much bigger blocks by now - but these facts are censored on most of the media controlled by Core/Blockstream-associated devs and their friends:
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/
The moderators of r\bitcoin have now removed a post which was just quotes by Satoshi Nakamoto.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/49l4uh/the_moderators_of_rbitcoin_have_now_removed_a/
(2) Research has repeatedly shown that 4 MB blocks would work fine with people's existing hardware and bandwidth - such as the Cornell study, plus empirical studies in the field done by jtoomim:
https://np.reddit.com/btc+bitcoin/search?q=cornell+4+mb&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
(3) Even leading Bitcoin figures such as Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and r\bitcoin censor moderator u/theymos have publicly stated that 2 MB blocks would work fine (in their rare moments of honesty, before they somehow became corrupted):
theymos 1/31/2013: "I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4qopcw/utheymos_1312013_i_strongly_disagree_with_the/
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
So... What can we do now to stop giant financial institutions like AXA from artificially suppressing Bitcoin adoption, volume and price?
It's not as hard as it might seem - but it might (initially) be a slow process!
First of all, more and more people can simply avoid using crippled code with an artificially tiny "max blocksize" limit of 1 MB produced by teams of dishonest developers like Core/Blockstream who are getting paid off by AXA.
Other, more powerful Bitcoin code is available - such as Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynoaa/announcing_bitcoin_unlimited/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4089aj/im_working_on_a_project_called_bitcoin_classic_to/
In addition, proposals for massive on-chain scaling have also been proposed, implemented, and tested - such as Xthin:
https://np.reddit.com/btc+bitcoin/search?q=xthin+author%3Apeter__r&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
Hasn't the market already rejected other solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic?
Actually, no!
If you only read r\bitcoin, you might not hear about lots of these promising new innovations - or you might hear people proclaiming that they're "dead".
But that forum r\bitcoin is not reliable, because it routinely censors any discussion of on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, eg:
The most upvoted thread right now on r\bitcoin (part 4 of 5 on Xthin), is default-sorted to show the most downvoted comments first. This shows that r\bitcoin is anti-democratic, anti-Reddit - and anti-Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mwxn9/the_most_upvoted_thread_right_now_on_rbitcoin/
So, due to the combination of inertia (people tend to be lazy and cautious about upgrading their software, until they absolutely have to) and censorship, some people claim or believe that solutions like Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic have "already" been rejected by the community.
But actually, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited are already running seamlessly on the Bitcoin network - and once they reach a certain predefined safe "activation threshold", the network will simply switch over to use them, upgrading from the artificially restrictive Bitcoin Core code:
Be patient about Classic. It's already a "success" - in the sense that it has been tested, released, and deployed, with 1/6 nodes already accepting 2MB+ blocks. Now it can quietly wait in the wings, ready to be called into action on a moment's notice. And it probably will be - in 2016 (or 2017).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44y8ut/be_patient_about_classic_its_already_a_success_in/
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
So what is the actual point of this weekend's meeting between Core/Blockstream and the Chinese Miners?
It's mainly just for show, and ultimately a meaningless distraction - the result of desperation and dishonesty on the part of Core/Blockstream.
As mentioned above, real upgrades to Bitcoin like Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited have already been implemented and tested and are already running on the Bitcoin network - and the overall Bitcoin itself can and probably will switch over to them, regardless of any meaningless "meetings" and delaying tactics.
Is it inevitable for Bitcoin to move to bigger blocks?
Yes, for three reasons:
(1) As mentioned above, studies show that the underlying hardware and bandwidth will already easily support actual blocksizes of 2 MB, and probably 4 MB - and everyone actually agrees on this point, including die-hard supporters of tiny blocks such as Blockstream CTO Gregory Maxwell u/nullc, and r\bitcoin censor moderator u/theymos.
(2) The essential thing about a publicly held company is that it always seeks to maximize shareholder value - and, in a similar fashion, a publicly held cryptocurrency also always seeks to maximize "coinholder" value.
(3) Even if Core/Blockstream continues to refuse to budge, the cat is already out of the bag - they can't put the toothpaste of open-source code back into the tube. Some people might sell their bitcoins for other cryptocurrencies which have better scaling - but a better solution would probably be to wait for a "spinoff" to happen. A "spinoff" is a special kind of "hard fork" where the existing ledger is preserved, so your coins remain spendable on both forks, and you can trade your coins on markets, depending on which fork you prefer.
Further information on "spinoff technology" can be found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Abitco.in%2Fforum+spinoff&ia=web
An excellent discussion of the economic advantages of using a "spinoff" to keep the original ledger (and merely upgrade the ledger-appending software), can be found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678866.0
And today, based on new information learned from Ethereum's recent successful "hardfork split", people are already starting to talk about the specific details involved in implementing a "spinoff" or "hardfork split" for Bitcoin to support bigger blocks - eg, changing the PoW, getting exchanges to support trading on both sides of the fork, upgrading wallets, preventing replay attacks, etc:
We now know the miners aren't going to do anything. We now know that a minority fork can survive. Why are we not forking right now?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vieve/we_now_know_the_miners_arent_going_to_do_anything/
So - whether it's via a hardfork upgrade, or a hardfork split or "spinoff" - it is probably inevitable that Bitcoin will eventually move to bigger blocks (within the underlying hardware and bandwidth constraints of course - which would currently support 2-4 MB blocksizes).
Why are bigger blocks inevitable for Bitcoin?
Because that's how markets always have and always will behave - and there's nothing that Blockstream/Core or AXA can do to stop this - no matter how many pointless stalling scaling meetings they conduct, and no matter how many non-agreements they sign and then break.
Conclusion
Endless centralized meetings and dishonest agreements are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is decentralized markets and open-source code. Users and markets decide on what code to install, and what size blocks to accept. Bitcoin adoption, volume - and price - will continue to grow, with or without the cooperation of the dishonest devs from Core/Blockstream, or misguided miners - or banksters at "fantasy fiat" financial firms like JPMorgan or AXA.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Mike Hearn's inconsistencies with respect to block size

From his "The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" post:
"The reason the true limit seems to be 700 kilobytes instead of the theoretical 1000 is that sometimes miners produce blocks smaller than allowed and even empty blocks, despite that there are lots of transactions waiting to confirm — this seems to be most frequently caused by interference from the Chinese “Great Firewall” censorship system. More on that in a second."
"Because the block chain is controlled by Chinese miners, just two of whom control more than 50% of the hash power. At a recent conference over 95% of hashing power was controlled by a handful of guys sitting on a single stage. The miners are not allowing the block chain to grow."
"And the final reason is that the Chinese internet is so broken by their government’s firewall that moving data across the border barely works at all, with speeds routinely worse than what mobile phones provide."
"Right now, the Chinese miners are able to — just about — maintain their connection to the global internet"
So, established by Mike: Chinese miners are currently the largest players, at least 50% of the mining power and they have limited bandwidth which is barely able to operate at current capacity. What is his solution?:
"In August 2015 it became clear that due to severe mismanagement, the “Bitcoin Core” project that maintains the program that runs the peer-to-peer network wasn’t going to release a version that raised the block size limit. The reasons for this are complicated and discussed below. But obviously, the community needed the ability to keep adding new users. So some long-term developers (including me) got together and developed the necessary code to raise the limit. That code was called BIP 101 and we released it in a modified version of the software that we branded Bitcoin XT."
BIP101: "The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC"
So his solution, increase capacity to 8MB 6 days ago. So what are we to assume would have happened then? I don't claim to be smart enough to accurately predict the result but I'm pretty sure based on the assumptions Mike laid out in his own words this would impact most of bitcoin's mining capacity. Does this seem like a prudent plan to you?
I found a ton of other amazing misrepresentations, like this one:
"it’s now common to be asked to pay more to miners than a credit card would charge". Common? Really? Perhaps if one is spending 1 BTC of collected dust, but that doesn't not seem like a common scenario.
There are plenty more misrepresentations but I'm trying to stay focused on the bandwidth issue, though this is the kicker to me:
"When parts of the community are viciously turning on the people that have introduced millions of users to the currency, you know things have got really crazy." Isn't that just exactly what Mike Hearn did with this medium post? Not only did he turn on the people who managed to bootstrap, maintain and nurture this system, he turned on all of the XT supporters and all investors.
Also notice the failure to mention he's now an R3 employee working on a competing blockchain? Perhaps if he really cared about the people he worked with and the community he represented, that he claims he was trying to help with XT, in the interest of fairness and knowing the broader public eye would be on this post due to the NYT article, he would have disclosed that. He should have.
IMO, all indicators are that this was simply a bitcoin hit piece in an attempt to benefit his personal stock and new employer.
So to my point, if 1 of the 2 leaders of the XT movement would do such a thing and was so influential as to precipitate this major rift, should we perhaps use more caution before trusting successors with easy solutions?
I hope this post serves to reopen the questions regarding bandwidth which seem to not be adequately discussed (thanks Mike_Hearn for providing the valuable information), and to hopefully restore some faith in the more mature and cautious development and process of the core developers vs. the reactive and emotional responses of their detractors. Note, I believe what Theymos did with censorship was wrong and completely antithetical to the spirit of bitcoin, but we need to be collectively cautious rather than assume the logical response is to blindly follow a different path and a new charismatic leader. Especially when that path seems to be clearly dangerous based on the prior leader's own words.
submitted by jimmajamma to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc posts from 2017-10-03 to 2017-10-09 13:22 PDT

Period: 6.50 days
Submissions Comments
Total 837 20193
Rate (per day) 128.85 2692.43
Unique Redditors 489 2132
Combined Score 26601 69285

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 1086 points, 17 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. Another all time low achieved - The Blockstream CSO just reported Coinbase to the NYDFS (on Twitter) claiming they are violating the Bitlicense (199 points, 91 comments)
    2. Craig Wright is NOT the face of or "CEO" Bitcoin Cash (181 points, 116 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Withdrawals now available on Gemini exchange (176 points, 39 comments)
    4. In just the month of September 2017 alone rBitcoin mods censored 5633 posts and comments! (115 points, 19 comments)
    5. Forget stealing data — these hackers broke into Amazon's cloud to mine bitcoin (91 points, 11 comments)
    6. Why Blockstream Is So Loudly Against Segwit2x (72 points, 52 comments)
    7. 10 reasons why Reddit admins should close down Bitcoin and not BTC (63 points, 62 comments)
    8. These are the real enemies of Bitcoin (43 points, 23 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Core developers along with Blockstream are destroying Bitcoin (36 points, 5 comments)
    10. Theory: Bitcoin Cash price is dropping as we get closer to SegWit2X hard fork. People are putting their money back into the SegWit1X chain for now so they can claim coins on both chains come November. (34 points, 43 comments)
  2. 970 points, 8 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Repost: "The notion of every #bitcoin user running their own node is as dumb as the notion of every email user running their own server.' (279 points, 233 comments)
    2. Just letting Bitcoin.org know that Bitcoin.com will list S2X as BTC (Just like 95% of the rest of the ecosystem will) (243 points, 146 comments)
    3. Censorship question (158 points, 164 comments)
    4. The newest Bitcoin CASH billboard is coming to Silicon Valley! ($1,000 in Bitcoin Cash giveaway contest) (90 points, 38 comments)
    5. Core supporter mentality: Why would anyone ever switch from Myspace to Facebook? Of course they won't, we are already #1 (73 points, 67 comments)
    6. Insights from "a professional capacity planner for one of the world’s busiest websites" on the block size issue. (59 points, 18 comments)
    7. South Korean Startups Are Preparing To Fight The Government's ICO Ban (48 points, 2 comments)
    8. Meanwhile in Japan: (20 points, 21 comments)
  3. 895 points, 7 submissions: poorbrokebastard
    1. Is segwit2x the REAL Banker takeover? (288 points, 400 comments)
    2. No supporter of Bitcoin Cash ever called it "Bcash." (207 points, 328 comments)
    3. The real upgrade happened on August 1st, 2017 (186 points, 206 comments)
    4. We are building a Big Blocker's Arsenal of Truth and we need your help! (143 points, 163 comments)
    5. Understanding the Implications of Restricting Capacity in a Peer to Peer Cash System. (53 points, 42 comments)
    6. Block space is a market-based, public good, NOT a centrally controlled, restricted commodity. (18 points, 48 comments)
    7. Crypt0 on youtube talks about the Segwit2x Banker Takeover (0 points, 3 comments)
  4. 866 points, 4 submissions: jessquit
    1. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork (540 points, 352 comments)
    2. If you still think that SW2X is going to be a nice clean upgrade per the NYA you're smoking crack (136 points, 177 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin, even if Segwit currently has greater market share due to its stronger shilling (104 points, 140 comments)
    4. "Firing Core" by running SW2X makes as much sense as firing the Linux kernel devs by running Ubuntu. (86 points, 69 comments)
  5. 785 points, 8 submissions: btcnewsupdates
    1. Overstock accepts Bitcoin Cash - BCH holders can now buy Home Goods, Bed & Bath Essentials, Jewellery & More! (586 points, 117 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Cash Gains More Infrastructure In the Midst of Segwit2x Drama - Bitcoin News (80 points, 35 comments)
    3. To commemorate its Bitcoin Cash addition, GMO has launched a cash-back campaign for bitcoin cash of up to 25,000 yen (40 points, 0 comments)
    4. India’s Koinex Exchange to Enable Bitcoin Cash Trading Soon (31 points, 13 comments)
    5. Unregulated Is Not Lawless - CFTC is investigating Coinbase’s Ethereum flash crash (23 points, 6 comments)
    6. SimpleFX, online Forex & Cryptocurrency broker recently introduced Bitcoin Cash as a deposit currency (22 points, 0 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Cash Popularity Allows ViaBTC Mining Pool to Surpass 1 Exahash (3 points, 0 comments)
    8. Trade Bitcoin Cash CFDs - The Rapidly Rising Crypto - plus500.co.uk‎ (0 points, 0 comments)
  6. 745 points, 18 submissions: cryptorebel
    1. Great analysis by singularity and jessquit on how anti-btc trolls shifted: "suddenly last year they all disappeared, and a new type of bitcoin user appeared who were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did." (102 points, 50 comments)
    2. Don't fall for EDA Dragons Den FUD. EDA is a powerful weapon that could kill off or cripple the segwit chain for good. Legacy coin has no EDA crash barrier as this article explains. This is why small blockers use FUD us to disarm the EDA (78 points, 118 comments)
    3. Roger Ver CEO of bitcoin.com says that from his point of view the segwit2x split just gives him more coins to sell for the Bitcoin Cash version which he thinks is the more useful Bitcoin @3min41s mark (71 points, 33 comments)
    4. Proof the new Dragons Den plan could be to try to split BCC with an EDA change. Mrhodl is confirmed Dragons Den, and Cobra Bitcoin is the leader of bitcoin.org which is making enemy lists for big block supporting businesses. (70 points, 47 comments)
    5. Right now segwit2x (BT2) is trading for $1143 and segwit1x (BT1) is $3070 on Bitfinex futures markets. Even with not the greatest terms, you would expect 2x to be much higher. I believe this bodes well for BCC. (61 points, 112 comments)
    6. The other day people were suggesting we do an EDA change before the November 2x fork. Here is why I think that is a terrible idea, and why we should only consider EDA change AFTER the 2x fork. (58 points, 40 comments)
    7. "Nick, Adam and others saw the flaw in the system being that they could not ensure one vote one person.. The flaw in that reasoning is assuming that one vote one person was ever a goal. Miners act economically not altruistically." (57 points, 14 comments)
    8. Original chain is now only 4.8% more profitable than Bitcoin Cash chain after the most recent EDA adjustment on BCC. Very normal blocktimes. Where is the EDA dragons den FUD now? (53 points, 33 comments)
    9. Great Explanation from Peter Rizun at 6min mark, on why Segregated Witness no longer fits the Definition of Bitcoin in the Whitepaper as a Chain of Signatures. (51 points, 19 comments)
    10. Right now segwit2x is $650 and segwit1x is $3906. Search for BT1 and BT2 on this page and you can see the futures prices. (51 points, 102 comments)
  7. 640 points, 3 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. "Am I so out of touch?" (441 points, 163 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Cannot Be Only a Store of Value - excellent article by OpenBazaar dev Chris Pacia (189 points, 47 comments)
    3. Interesting research paper: Troops, Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation (10 points, 2 comments)
  8. 622 points, 2 submissions: routefire
    1. "Everyone who supported UASF and now complains about S2X out of fear of confusion/lack of mandatory replay protection is a hypocrite. UASF did not have ANY replay protection, not even opt-in. UASF did not even have wipe-out protection!" (394 points, 133 comments)
    2. While /bitcoin was circle-jerking to the idea that no exchange would list the SW2x chain as BTC, Bitcoin Thailand's comment to the contrary was removed from the very same thread! (228 points, 70 comments)
  9. 510 points, 6 submissions: BitcoinIsTehFuture
    1. Bitfinex announcement about issuing BT1 & BT2 "Chain Split Tokens" to allow Futures trading. (BT1 = Segwit1x; BT2 = Segwit2x) (172 points, 173 comments)
    2. By proving that it can be done (getting rid of Core) this will set a HUUGE precedent and milestone that dev teams and even outright censorship cannot overtake Bitcoin. That will be an extremely bullish occasionfor all crypto. (149 points, 84 comments)
    3. Bitfinex is going to call Segwit2x coins "B2X" and let Core chain retain "BTC" ticker symbol. Bitfinex is therefore calling Segwit2x an altcoin and Core the "real chain". (138 points, 70 comments)
    4. The goal of all the forks appears to be to dilute investment in the true forks: Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x. A sort of Scorched Earth approach by Blockstream. They are going to try to tear down Bitcoin as they get removed. (35 points, 11 comments)
    5. Blockstream be like (10 points, 11 comments)
    6. In light of all these upcoming forks, we need a site where you can put in a BTC address and it checks ALL the forks and says which chains still have a balance for that address. This way you can split your coins and send coins carefully. (6 points, 6 comments)
  10. 508 points, 3 submissions: xmrusher
    1. Can we take a moment to appreciate Jeff Garzik for how much bullshit he has to deal with while working to give BTC a long-needed upgrade that Core has been blocking for so long? (278 points, 193 comments)
    2. The very objective article "Bitcoin is not ruled by miners" on the "bitcoin wiki" was added by theymos on 8th of August this year. Nothing strange to see here, just an objective, encyclopedia-quality overview! (155 points, 58 comments)
    3. According to Crooked Greg, Jeff merging opt-in replay protection is "alarming", because it must mean Jeff wants to blacklist people's addresses too. Core devs keep lying and manipulating to stir more drama and further the split in the community. Disgusting! (75 points, 16 comments)
  11. 505 points, 4 submissions: WalterRothbard
    1. Sam Patterson on Twitter: Can anyone explain why miners and CEOs agreeing to a 2mb hard fork was no big deal with the HKA but is a "corporate takeover" with the NYA? (221 points, 85 comments)
    2. Apparently Bitcoin requires trust now - trusting Core. I didn't get that memo. I think I'll opt out. (169 points, 139 comments)
    3. Erik Voorhees on Twitter: Nothing about NYA was secret (106 points, 34 comments)
    4. How much BTC is in segwit addresses? (9 points, 25 comments)
  12. 480 points, 3 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Friendly reminder: if you haven't yet, watch this video which shows reddit is gamed and manipulated by professional shills paid by companies with huge million dollar budgets. It is up to our community to defend itself against these bad actors. (325 points, 99 comments)
    2. Blockchain CEO Peter Smith on Twitter: "We've dedicated our lives to building bitcoin products, introduced millions to bitcoin, evangelized, long before it was cool. Enemies?" (in response to Adam Back) (147 points, 47 comments)
    3. Liberty in North Korea: Reddit online community members join forces to assist in the placement of North Korea’s Hermit Kingdom refugees (8 points, 3 comments)
  13. 459 points, 4 submissions: singularity87
    1. The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up. (435 points, 279 comments)
    2. Understanding Bitcoin - Incentives & The Power Dynamic (13 points, 1 comment)
    3. Understanding Bitcoin - What is 'Centralisation'? (9 points, 9 comments)
    4. Understanding Bitcoin - Validity is in the Eye of the Beholder (2 points, 25 comments)
  14. 434 points, 3 submissions: Gregory_Maxwell
    1. Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively" (214 points, 79 comments)
    2. Gregory Maxwell: I didn't look to see how Bitcoin worked because I had already proven it (strong decentralized consensus) to be impossible. (122 points, 103 comments)
    3. LAST 1000 BLOCKS: Segwit2x-intent blocks: 922 (92.2%) (98 points, 99 comments)
  15. 419 points, 1 submission: Testwest78
    1. Making Gregory Maxwell a Bitcoin Core Committer Was a “Huge Mistake” Says Gavin Andresen (419 points, 231 comments)
  16. 412 points, 14 submissions: knight222
    1. Kudos to Theymos who wanted to clear things up... (311 points, 89 comments)
    2. COINFUCIUS on Twitter: We are working with the machine's manufacturer to incorporate Bitcoin Cash support. This is a priority for us. (76 points, 2 comments)
    3. Cash, credit ... or Bitcoin? St. John's gets 1st cybercurrency ATM - Newfoundland - Labrador (9 points, 1 comment)
    4. Banks like the potential of digital currencies but are cool on bitcoin, UBS says (3 points, 0 comments)
    5. The Feds Just Collected $48 Million from Seized Bitcoins (3 points, 1 comment)
    6. while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. (3 points, 3 comments)
    7. ‘Fraud.’ ‘More than a fad.’ The words Wall Street CEOs are using to describe bitcoin (2 points, 0 comments)
    8. Bitcoin is creating stark divisions on Wall Street (1 point, 0 comments)
    9. Bitcoin: Bitcoin's rise happened in the shadows. Now banks want in (1 point, 0 comments)
    10. Japan’s Biggest Bank Plans to “Overcome” Bitcoin Volatility with 'MUFG Coin' (1 point, 0 comments)
  17. 406 points, 5 submissions: jonald_fyookball
    1. Normal, real twitter users don't add [UASF], [No2x] or any "causes" to their user handles. Obvious astroturfing is obvious. Do they really think they are fooling anyone? (175 points, 134 comments)
    2. Greg Maxwell (and others) may be engaging in the illegal harassment of Jeff Garzik. (92 points, 24 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash FAQ updated. Explains why Bitcoin Cash doesn't have SegWit and why it was not considered a capacity increase (87 points, 11 comments)
    4. Is it all a bait and switch campaign? (32 points, 14 comments)
    5. Possible EDA simulation algorithm sketch (20 points, 12 comments)
  18. 404 points, 3 submissions: Annapurna317
    1. Everyone should calm down. The upgrade to 2x has 95%+ miner support and will be as smooth as a hot knife through butter. Anyone that says otherwise is fear monguring or listening to bitcoin propaganda. (364 points, 292 comments)
    2. Notice: Redditor for 3-4 months accounts or accounts that do not have a history of Bitcoin posts are probably the same person or just a few people paid to manipulate discussion here. It's likely a paid astroturfing campaign. (38 points, 30 comments)
    3. The latest TED Radio Hour titled “Getting Organized” talks about the decentralized algorithms of ants and how centralization is not the most ideal state of an organization. (2 points, 0 comments)
  19. 385 points, 1 submission: squarepush3r
    1. Dangerous direction for /btc, possible jump the shark moment. Witch-hunting, paid troll and Dragon Den's accusation to justify censorship. (385 points, 201 comments)
  20. 381 points, 1 submission: hunk_quark
    1. Why is there so much debate on whether Bitcoin is store of value or digital currency? Satoshi's white paper was pretty clear it's a digital currency. (381 points, 182 comments)
  21. 369 points, 5 submissions: craftercrafter
    1. Gavin Andresen on Twitter: Early bitcoin devs luckily picked the right project at the right time. None are irreplaceable, bitcoin will succeed with or without us. (293 points, 57 comments)
    2. Antpool, BTC.TOP & Viabtc all said EDA is a temporary design for BCC. They are just waiting for the new algorithm. (34 points, 19 comments)
    3. SimpleFX, an Online Forex & Cryptocurrency Broker, Adds Bitcoin Cash Payments as well as Bitcoin Cash Trading Pairs! (27 points, 1 comment)
    4. BCC Miners, two EDAs have locked in. This will reduce mining difficulty to 64.00%. If you are aiming to achieve profit parity, you should start mining after the next EDA (in 2.5 hours), because then the difficulty will be at 51%, which gives profit parity on both chains and steady block rate. (9 points, 14 comments)
    5. Antpool, Viabtc, Bitcoin.com, BTC.com, we need to hear your voice. In the case of a scheduled hardfork for updating the EDA, will your pool follow? (6 points, 18 comments)
  22. 348 points, 6 submissions: specialenmity
    1. Fact: proof of work which is the foundation of bitcoin and not invented by Adam back was designed to counter attacks where one person falsely represents to be many(like spam). Subreddits and twitter dont form the foundation of bitcoin for a reason. (156 points, 27 comments)
    2. I'm a small blocker and I support the NYA (87 points, 46 comments)
    3. Devs find clever way to add replay protection that doesn't change transaction format which would break software compatibility and cause disruption. G. Max responds by saying that this blacklisting is a sign of things to come. (49 points, 57 comments)
    4. Five ways small blocks (AKA core1mb) hurt decentralization (36 points, 4 comments)
    5. Even if bitcoins only use to society was avoiding negative interest rates, bail-ins + bail-outs, that is incredibly useful to society. Of course a banker like Jamie Dimon would call something a fraud that removes a "bank tax" on society by allowing them to avoid these fraudulent charges. (18 points, 0 comments)
    6. There are different kinds of censorship. The core propagandists are unwittingly great advocates of economic censorship (2 points, 1 comment)
  23. 286 points, 2 submissions: coincrazyy
    1. Rick Falkvinge on Twitter - "Blockstream's modus operandi is not particularly hard to copy. It's just so cheap and shortsighted." -Gets 5000 ReTweets and 5000 likes in 30 mins. TO PROVE A POINT. ASTROTURFING DOES NOT MEAN CONSENSUS (164 points, 15 comments)
    2. Segwit was invented by "cypherpunks" THAT FAILED TO CREATE A VIABLE DIGITAL CURRENCY. Bitcoin was created by a cypherpunk that SUCCEEDED. (122 points, 118 comments)
  24. 257 points, 2 submissions: olivierjanss
    1. Why Bitfinex’s “Chain Split Tokens” are completely biased towards the small block side (again) (205 points, 165 comments)
    2. Reminder of what took place behind closed doors in 2016, revealing Blockstream & Core's quest for domination & lies. (52 points, 3 comments)
  25. 254 points, 9 submissions: SeppDepp2
    1. #SegWit2x is an upgrade to BTC and will use the BTC ticker. (103 points, 59 comments)
    2. Core rage quitting Swiss Bitcoin Association ? - Due to a CSW free speech ? - OMG - grow up little prejudges! (76 points, 141 comments)
    3. "Venezuela could soon decide to adopt the Bitcoin as its new currency" - Hope they'll use Satoshi's Bitcoin Cash - They cannot afford high fees like most No2X / NoCash puppets! (36 points, 6 comments)
    4. A short logical layman proof definition of Bitcoin: Look up, what Bitcoin really is: 1) Whitepaper 2) First code version Bitcoin is Bitcoin Cash and includes e.g. the witness. Segwit - Bitcoin is an alternative to this (ALT). (17 points, 3 comments)
    5. Core gets hyperallergic about a free speach of CSW in neutral Switzerland (6 points, 35 comments)
    6. Different Bitcoins: Value proposition, trust, reputation - confidence (6 points, 0 comments)
    7. Four Different November Scenarios (6 points, 24 comments)
    8. Swiss biggest FinTech launches BITCOIN Tracker (valid up to 2020) (2 points, 1 comment)
    9. Watch out for this kind of pattern! If it comes to such a segregation of good old members into good and enemy its gonna be dirty! (2 points, 0 comments)
  26. 230 points, 2 submissions: williaminlondon
    1. PSA: latest rbitcoin post "It's time to label (and remove from reddit.com) what is plainly obvious: btc is a monetized subreddit for bitcoin.com." (126 points, 57 comments)
    2. Did anyone notice how angry Blockstream / Core people are whenever good news are posted here? (104 points, 108 comments)
  27. 227 points, 1 submission: dskloet
    1. All the #no2x bullshit is the fault of the people who agreed to activeate SegWit before 2x. (227 points, 199 comments)
  28. 226 points, 5 submissions: opling
    1. Japan's Largest Bitcoin Exchange Bitflyer Launches Bitcoin Visa Prepaid Card (112 points, 1 comment)
    2. Large Japanese Energy Supplier Adds Bitcoin Payments With a Discount (44 points, 4 comments)
    3. Bitcoin ATMs On the Rise in Russia (40 points, 2 comments)
    4. Russia's Central Bank Instructs Clearinghouse Not to Settle Cryptocurrency Contracts (18 points, 1 comment)
    5. Government Head of IT Department Fired for Mining Bitcoin Using State-Owned Computers in Crimea (12 points, 2 comments)
  29. 222 points, 2 submissions: GrumpyAnarchist
    1. Xapo just sold off another 70,000 BCH today, that might explain the price. They're down to 176K in their main wallet now. (166 points, 132 comments)
    2. Roger, can you make Bitcoin Cash an option, with maybe a link to info, in the original wallet setup phase for the Bitcoin.com wallet? (56 points, 28 comments)
  30. 216 points, 7 submissions: uMCCCS
    1. TIL a BS employee, Chris Decker, and some other people released a study that says "4 MB blocks don't cause centralization" (128 points, 19 comments)
    2. Without ASICs, there would be large botnets that are more centralized (44 points, 43 comments)
    3. Bitcoin-ML Bucketed UTXO Commitment (a.k.a. Blockchain pruning!) (27 points, 6 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Cash is Satoshi's BitCoin, not altered Bitcoin (10 points, 10 comments)
    5. TIL BashCo has a website "2x Countdown" (5 points, 1 comment)
    6. How true is rBTC censorship? (2 points, 7 comments)
    7. If S1X lives and Core Never HardForks, BTC will die in year 2038 (0 points, 7 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. williaminlondon (3150 points, 739 comments)
  2. poorbrokebastard (2114 points, 518 comments)
  3. cryptorebel (1768 points, 257 comments)
  4. space58 (1313 points, 201 comments)
  5. Adrian-X (1109 points, 235 comments)
  6. knight222 (1037 points, 157 comments)
  7. bitcoincashuser (946 points, 188 comments)
  8. jessquit (901 points, 150 comments)
  9. ---Ed--- (758 points, 185 comments)
  10. LovelyDay (742 points, 125 comments)
  11. jonald_fyookball (720 points, 106 comments)
  12. Not_Pictured (701 points, 111 comments)
  13. awemany (675 points, 173 comments)
  14. BitcoinXio (611 points, 41 comments)
  15. Gregory_Maxwell (609 points, 90 comments)
  16. singularity87 (608 points, 44 comments)
  17. 2dsxc (587 points, 79 comments)
  18. BitcoinIsTehFuture (567 points, 79 comments)
  19. BTCrob (534 points, 214 comments)
  20. H0dl (531 points, 79 comments)
  21. dskloet (517 points, 94 comments)
  22. Ant-n (509 points, 132 comments)
  23. nullc (497 points, 66 comments)
  24. tippr (483 points, 284 comments)
  25. todu (476 points, 63 comments)
  26. GrumpyAnarchist (472 points, 127 comments)
  27. tophernator (462 points, 78 comments)
  28. livecatbounce (456 points, 61 comments)
  29. kenman345 (453 points, 49 comments)
  30. cryptonaut420 (403 points, 50 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Overstock accepts Bitcoin Cash - BCH holders can now buy Home Goods, Bed & Bath Essentials, Jewellery & More! by btcnewsupdates (586 points, 117 comments)
  2. I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork by jessquit (540 points, 352 comments)
  3. "Am I so out of touch?" by BeijingBitcoins (441 points, 163 comments)
  4. The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up. by singularity87 (435 points, 279 comments)
  5. Making Gregory Maxwell a Bitcoin Core Committer Was a “Huge Mistake” Says Gavin Andresen by Testwest78 (419 points, 231 comments)
  6. "Everyone who supported UASF and now complains about S2X out of fear of confusion/lack of mandatory replay protection is a hypocrite. UASF did not have ANY replay protection, not even opt-in. UASF did not even have wipe-out protection!" by routefire (394 points, 133 comments)
  7. Dangerous direction for /btc, possible jump the shark moment. Witch-hunting, paid troll and Dragon Den's accusation to justify censorship. by squarepush3r (385 points, 201 comments)
  8. Why is there so much debate on whether Bitcoin is store of value or digital currency? Satoshi's white paper was pretty clear it's a digital currency. by hunk_quark (381 points, 182 comments)
  9. Everyone should calm down. The upgrade to 2x has 95%+ miner support and will be as smooth as a hot knife through butter. Anyone that says otherwise is fear monguring or listening to bitcoin propaganda. by Annapurna317 (364 points, 292 comments)
  10. Friendly reminder: if you haven't yet, watch this video which shows reddit is gamed and manipulated by professional shills paid by companies with huge million dollar budgets. It is up to our community to defend itself against these bad actors. by BitcoinXio (325 points, 99 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 194 points: cryptorebel's comment in Dangerous direction for /btc, possible jump the shark moment. Witch-hunting, paid troll and Dragon Den's accusation to justify censorship.
  2. 167 points: EH74JP's comment in The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up.
  3. 158 points: BobWalsch's comment in I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork
  4. 157 points: BitcoinXio's comment in Dangerous direction for /btc, possible jump the shark moment. Witch-hunting, paid troll and Dragon Den's accusation to justify censorship.
  5. 149 points: MemoryDealers's comment in All the #no2x bullshit is the fault of the people who agreed to activeate SegWit before 2x.
  6. 116 points: Testwest78's comment in Making Gregory Maxwell a Bitcoin Core Committer Was a “Huge Mistake” Says Gavin Andresen
  7. 115 points: 2dsxc's comment in I think we need an EDA fix before the Nov hardfork
  8. 106 points: Piper67's comment in jgarzik please do not add replay protection
  9. 106 points: singularity87's comment in The entire bitcoin economy is attacking bitcoin says bitcoin.org! You can't make this shit up.
  10. 99 points: zowki's comment in Bitcoin.com Pool stabilized the Bitcoin Cash blockchain (prevented excessive EDAs)
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Ethereum and Bitcoin

I'm an ex-Bitcoin miner and early adopter. (not an ex-bitcoiner)
From the moment Ethereum was announced, I got excited.
It was because my impression of Ethereum was that they actually actively were going to work on Smart Contracts. I learned about contracts with the introduction of Bitcoin, then waited patiently to see contracts coming to bitcoin and still I'm not seeing it.
I complained about it on /Bitcoin but my questions and topics about Smart Contracts didn't get any attention there.
That was one of the main reasons for me to start following Ethereum more actively.
In the past half year, there was something else about Bitcoin starting to increasingly bug me: censorship. The Bitcoin I "grew up" with was an open community, it was the community that made me believe in Bitcoin.
I saw it turning into a dictatorship under the iron fist of Theymos.
With the blocksize debate escalating, and seeing more censorship instead of solutions, I had to start figuring out ways to secure my Bitcoins by hedging it to other cryptos for the time being.
In my search for a good coin to hedge Bitcoin, there was Ethereum again, so I stocked some up as a safe-haven for the current uncertain Bitcoin times.
Then, some spammer came along to spam the /Bitcoin users with his Ethereum comments.
To me, the reasoning this person used were actually quite interesting. His experiences with /Bitcoin in the past few years, also lead him to move to alternatives, in his case majorly to Ethereum.
And how do the other Bitcoin users react? With complaints and moaning, stating "now I'm definitely not buying Ethereum"
To these people I'd like to say: you guys are freaking idiots.
Let me show you how much of an idiots they are with an example
It's like people owning a Volkswagen.
Then you hear others complaining: "hey dude, you should really buy a Toyota because Volkswagen has been putting cheating software in their cars to make them look cleaner than they actually are"
And then these Volkswagen owners say: "omg! You are a Toyota user telling me my Volkswagen is bad for nature? Now I'm definitely not going to buy a Toyota!!!"
That's pretty ridiculous answer to me.
I have created replies in these topics explaining to bitcoiners how the current crypto-environment, censorship, theymos, etc... have created an environment that makes people do the stuff that this spammer did. Of course, those posts have now been reported as "Ethereum spam". How original.
This spam that happened is just a symptom of a serious problem that the Bitcoin community has.
And we at Ethereum should never have to be ashamed for attracting spammers. Hell, we shouldn't even be apologizing.
It's the Bitcoin community that should be ashamed of dividing the Crypto-community and creating these spammers. They are responsible.
Ethereum should not be held responsible for trying to have the kind of community that Bitcoin should have been.
submitted by Nooku to ethereum [link] [comments]

Discussion: Fellow bitcoiners should not be denounced as "brigading" on a Bitcoin sub

Recently, the mods of /Bitcoin, led by BashCo , have been complaining to the admins and getting Reddit users who also use /btc banned [1] or suspended for alleged "brigading" merely on account of posting comments or voting in this thread
https://www.ceddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5kwom5/the_bitcoin_page_on_the_arch_linux_wiki_has/
BashCo perma-banned everybody who has anything to do with /btc who participated in the thread for "brigading" and is making claims of vote manipulation.
There are reports that he mentioned in the Core slack that he is pursuing this with reddit admins.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-860#post-32457
This type of behavior from mods of a Bitcoin sub (which /Bitcoin is supposed to be) is very sad.
In a way, it ranks below Theymos' famous "if 90% of people here disagree then they should leave" comment, because at least Theymos directed the users to create their own venue for discussion, and I accept there can be various venues for Bitcoin discussion with different emphasis.
But banning users from participating in a Bitcoin sub by way of allegations of brigading when their comments were topical and relatively polite is going a step further in the direction of censorship of dissenting opinions.
I would correct the poster who wrote
I would reconsider what you're doing, because if you keep trying to spread the Bitcoin holy war suppression of forbidden words across the internet even into other communities like this, you're going to turn Bitcoin into a humongous laughing stock.
It is /Bitcoin itself which is damaged the most by this kind of mod behavior. And of course ordinary Bitcoin users from various other subreddits who are subjected to such capricious moderation and find themselves at the receiving end of an inexplicable perma-ban or other punitive action, only for voicing their opinions on Bitcoin-related matters in a Bitcoin sub.
[1] https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5kxgnz/rbitcoin_users_censoring_linux_wiki_so_there_is/dbrjrye/
submitted by LovelyDay to Bitcoin_Exposed [link] [comments]

Mike Hearn's inconsistencies with respect to block size

From his "The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" post:
"The reason the true limit seems to be 700 kilobytes instead of the theoretical 1000 is that sometimes miners produce blocks smaller than allowed and even empty blocks, despite that there are lots of transactions waiting to confirm — this seems to be most frequently caused by interference from the Chinese “Great Firewall” censorship system. More on that in a second."
"Because the block chain is controlled by Chinese miners, just two of whom control more than 50% of the hash power. At a recent conference over 95% of hashing power was controlled by a handful of guys sitting on a single stage. The miners are not allowing the block chain to grow."
"And the final reason is that the Chinese internet is so broken by their government’s firewall that moving data across the border barely works at all, with speeds routinely worse than what mobile phones provide."
"Right now, the Chinese miners are able to — just about — maintain their connection to the global internet"
So, established by Mike: Chinese miners are currently the largest players, at least 50% of the mining power and they have limited bandwidth which is barely able to operate at current capacity. What is his solution?:
"In August 2015 it became clear that due to severe mismanagement, the “Bitcoin Core” project that maintains the program that runs the peer-to-peer network wasn’t going to release a version that raised the block size limit. The reasons for this are complicated and discussed below. But obviously, the community needed the ability to keep adding new users. So some long-term developers (including me) got together and developed the necessary code to raise the limit. That code was called BIP 101 and we released it in a modified version of the software that we branded Bitcoin XT."
BIP101: "The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC"
So his solution, increase capacity to 8MB 6 days ago. So what are we to assume would have happened then? I don't claim to be smart enough to accurately predict the result but I'm pretty sure based on the assumptions Mike laid out in his own words this would impact most of bitcoin's mining capacity. Does this seem like a prudent plan to you?
I found a ton of other amazing misrepresentations, like this one:
"it’s now common to be asked to pay more to miners than a credit card would charge". Common? Really? Perhaps if one is spending 1 BTC of collected dust, but that doesn't not seem like a common scenario.
There are plenty more misrepresentations but I'm trying to stay focused on the bandwidth issue, though this is the kicker to me:
"When parts of the community are viciously turning on the people that have introduced millions of users to the currency, you know things have got really crazy." Isn't that just exactly what Mike Hearn did with this medium post? Not only did he turn on the people who managed to bootstrap, maintain and nurture this system, he turned on all of the XT supporters and all investors.
Also notice the failure to mention he's now an R3 employee working on a competing blockchain? Perhaps if he really cared about the people he worked with and the community he represented, that he claims he was trying to help with XT, in the interest of fairness and knowing the broader public eye would be on this post due to the NYT article, he would have disclosed that. He should have.
IMO, all indicators are that this was simply a bitcoin hit piece in an attempt to benefit his personal stock and new employer.
So to my point, if 1 of the 2 leaders of the XT movement would do such a thing and was so influential as to precipitate this major rift, should we perhaps use more caution before trusting successors with easy solutions?
I hope this post serves to reopen the questions regarding bandwidth which seem to not be adequately discussed (thanks Mike_Hearn for providing the valuable information), and to hopefully restore some faith in the more mature and cautious development and process of the core developers vs. the reactive and emotional responses of their detractors. Note, I believe what Theymos did with censorship was wrong and completely antithetical to the spirit of bitcoin, but we need to be collectively cautious rather than assume the logical response is to blindly follow a different path and a new charismatic leader. Especially when that path seems to be clearly dangerous based on the prior leader's own words.
submitted by jimmajamma to btc [link] [comments]

sales ontop Bedienungsanleitung Onlineshop - YouTube Best of Bitcoin.com - YouTube Bitcoin.org takeover attempt - Bitcoin Core removes How The Banks Bought Bitcoin - The Lightning Network raekotz - YouTube

Internal shareholder relations have fallen apart; Theymos, a pseudonymous shareholder and treasurer at Bitcoin Global, believes that Nefario has been approached by legal authorities and the current events are really Nefario desperately doing everything he can to avoid prosecution. Nefario’s behavior is particularly problematic because, officially, he does not even fully control the exchange ... Earlier today, popular Bitcoin exchange Bitstamp announced how they will be implementing BIP 101 in a few days. As you would come to expect, it was only a matter of time until Theymos issued a comment on how Bitstamp will be removed from all Bitcoin references, including Reddit and the Bitcoin Wiki. Also read: Greek Banks Asked To Pay Bitcoin ... The leader behind this agenda was Theymos. He was known for moderating the r/bitcoin subreddit. John Blocke wrote an in-depth article on Medium about Theymos and this censorship campaign. He also cited a ton of evidence, including screenshots. He said: Since the limit was introduced in 2010, there have been countless discussions on the necessity as well as the methods that would be used to ... Die dritte involvierte Person ist theymos. Am 17. Oktober gab es einen Handels-IRC-Kanal #bitcoin-otc. Am 28. Oktober war die erste Short-Trade-Transaktion für 100 Münzen (vom Benutzer Nanotube zur Benutzer kiba). Die Transaktionsdatenbank war der Handelskanal #bitcoin-otc. Am 6. November betrug die Kapitalisierung von Bitcoin 1 Million US-Dollar. Der Wechselkurs an der MtGox-Börse hat $ 0 ... Theymos, the owner of the BitcoinTalk forums and manager of /r/Bitcoin, posted an interesting comment on the situation. “This issue has been discussed for several years,” he said.

[index] [31609] [36345] [48107] [31228] [30131] [15266] [47001] [33899] [33045] [23152]

sales ontop Bedienungsanleitung Onlineshop - YouTube

Some drama in Bitcoin land. Wait-- that's like every day. Bitcoin.org removed from Bitcoin Core's BTC "Bitcoin" Core client. Does Adam Back know what decentr... Theymos Is Deleting Bitcoin's History - Roger Ver ... You Can Now Invest in Bitcoin Cash ETP on Swiss Stock Exchange - Roger Ver and Hany Rashwan by Bitcoin.com - Official Channel. 7:05. Tutorial ... Bitcoin is over 9000! Bitcoin.org in turmoil Is Bitcoin Diamond a Scam https://themerkle.com/theymos-planned-to-have-bitcoin-knots-replace-bitcoin-core-as-ma... Tipps, Hilfestellungen und Informationen zu verschiedenen Rechtsfragen durch die Rechtsanwälte Kotz aus Kreuztal bei Siegen. Herr Rechtsanwalt Hans Jürgen Ko... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

#