luke-jr (Luke Dashjr) · GitHub

Samourai Wallet intentionally cripple support for Bitcoin Knots in revenge against Luke-jr

Samourai Wallet intentionally cripple support for Bitcoin Knots in revenge against Luke-jr submitted by Cobra-Bitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bcore dev Luke jr says on twitter "As a reminder, you should NOT use #Segwit for non-Lightning wallets. It is harmful to #Bitcoin"

Bcore dev Luke jr says on twitter submitted by increaseblocks to btc [link] [comments]

MASSIVE LIE from Luke-Jr, claims if you use lite wallets (like Electrum or Mycelium) you are not using Bitcoin.

MASSIVE LIE from Luke-Jr, claims if you use lite wallets (like Electrum or Mycelium) you are not using Bitcoin. submitted by poorbrokebastard to btc [link] [comments]

Luke-Jr decides to rename "paper wallet" to "Paper ECDSA private keys" for all of us. Replaces all paper wallet information on the Bitcoin Wiki with what he prefers to use (HD mnemonic wallet backups).

Luke-Jr doesn't like paper wallets. To this end, he has renamed/moved the official Bitcoin wiki for "Paper Wallet" to "Paper ECDSA private keys", making it confusing and difficult for users to learn what a paper wallet is and how to stay safe when making one. Meanwhile, he has created a brand new "Paper wallet" page in which he redefines a paper wallet as a Armory/Electrum backup of a HD wallet mnemonic seed, and says that these should not be confused with what you and I and everyone else calls a paper wallet.
The other contribution Luke-Jr made to the original paper wallet wiki was to unlink my own service (bitcoinpaperwallet.com) from the wiki, his reasoning being, "BitcoinPaperWallet was removed because it is a website for generating private keys". As someone who has put a lot of energy into paper wallet education and generally helping the bitcoin community with paper wallet generation, I find this utterly baffling.
I don't want to get involved in a revision battle here. Luke-Jr has already started that, reverting any changes I make to the wiki instantly.
If you have an opinion on this matter and you have bitcoin wiki editor privileges, please express it on the discussion page.
Edit 1: you can also express opinions right here of course :)
Edit 2: much of the discussion on this page is about whether or not paper wallets are a good idea, or if websites should be used to generate them. Can we at least agree that these pro/con arguments should appear on a wiki page called "paper wallets" so everyone can find them? If those arguments appear on a wiki page called "Paper ECDSA private keys" then nobody will see them.
Edit 3: Gladoscc on the wiki has renamed "Paper ECDSA private keys" back to "Paper Wallet" as of 12:41 UTC, so you may be confused if you visit the wiki to see what all the hubbub is about -- unless his change has been reverted by the time you read this. :)
Edit 4: Gladoscc's change didn't last for more than 24 hours before Luke-Jr re-reverted the changes, and then added in a confounding set of redirects in the wiki so that "Paper Wallet" redirects to "Paper wallet" which then redirects to his page on HD wallet mnemonic seeds. I cannot understand how this is supposed to help end users who want to learn what a paper wallet is (and why they're risky, and how hard it is to produce them in a safe way.)
submitted by cantonbecker to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bcore dev Luke jr says on twitter "As a reminder, you should NOT use #Segwit for non-Lightning wallets. It is harmful to #Bitcoin"

Bcore dev Luke jr says on twitter submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Bcore dev Luke jr says on twitter "As a reminder, you should NOT use #Segwit for non-Lightning wallets. It is harmful to #Bitcoin"

Bcore dev Luke jr says on twitter submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

And since on Bitcoin.org there's now one wallet less, Luke-Jr is proposing to add his Bitcoin LJR. Among the fantastic feature set: support for tonal notation, and enhanced spam filters. As usual. Another normal day on Thermo-Blockstream land...

And since on Bitcoin.org there's now one wallet less, Luke-Jr is proposing to add his Bitcoin LJR. Among the fantastic feature set: support for tonal notation, and enhanced spam filters. As usual. Another normal day on Thermo-Blockstream land... submitted by parban333 to btc [link] [comments]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Luke Jr is right - low fee tx's will never get processed under the new RBF rules and user bitcoins will be in limbo until they upgrade to a wallet that supports RBF

submitted by Gobitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

03-23 19:33 - 'I absolutely recommend everyone do never use this wallet, this wallet has not been vetted for and luke-jr is a known scammer: [link]' by /u/Waterwaterdude555 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 109-119min

'''
I absolutely recommend everyone do never use this wallet, this wallet has not been vetted for and luke-jr is a known scammer: [link]1
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Waterwaterdude555
1: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=luke-jr+scammer
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

MASSIVE LIE from Luke-Jr, claims if you use lite wallets (like Electrum or Mycelium) you are not using Bitcoin. /r/btc

MASSIVE LIE from Luke-Jr, claims if you use lite wallets (like Electrum or Mycelium) you are not using Bitcoin. /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

And since on Bitcoin.org there's now one wallet less, Luke-Jr is proposing to add his Bitcoin LJR. Among the fantastic feature set: support for tonal notation, and enhanced spam filters. As usual. Another normal day on Thermo-Blockstream land...

And since on Bitcoin.org there's now one wallet less, Luke-Jr is proposing to add his Bitcoin LJR. Among the fantastic feature set: support for tonal notation, and enhanced spam filters. As usual. Another normal day on Thermo-Blockstream land... submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Luke Jr is right - low fee tx's will never get processed under the new RBF rules and user bitcoins will be in limbo until they upgrade to a wallet that supports RBF

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Am I the only one who think more Bitcoin Full Node flavors are required to increase resilience?

Just found that luke-jr has released another updated version of Bitcoin Knots - https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/eqz9wm/bitcoin_knots_01901knots20200104_released/. This makes me think that why, except for Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knots and Armory (Ref: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet?step=5&platform=windows&features=full_node), there are no more version of Full Node?
Am I the only one, who think, BIG exchanges like CoinBase, Binance or BitMex should have their own flavor or Full Node implementation?
submitted by rockingBit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: The `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` Debate! Chaperones and output tagging and signature replay oh my!

Bitcoin price isn't moving oh no!!! You know WHAT ELSE isn't moving?? SIGHASH_NOINPUT that's what!!!
Now as you should already know, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") just ain't possible without SIGHASH_NOINPUT of some kind or other. And Decker-Russell-Osuntokun removes the toxic waste problem (i.e. old backups of your Poon-Dryja LN channels are actively dangerous and could lose your funds if you recover from them, or worse, your most hated enemy could acquire copies of your old state and make you lose funds). Decker-Russell-Osuntokun also allows multiparticipant offchain cryptocurrency update systems, without the drawback of a large unilateral close timeout that Decker-Wattenhofer does, making this construction better for use at the channel factory layer.
Now cdecker already wrote a some code implementing SIGHASH_NOINPUT before, which would make it work in current pre-SegWit P2PKH, P2SH, as well as SegWit v0 P2WPKH and P2WSH. He also made and published BIP 118.
But as is usual for Bitcoin Core development, this triggered debate, and thus many counterproposals were made and so on. Suffice it to say that the simple BIP 118 looks like it won't be coming into Bitcoin Core anytime soon (or possibly at all).
First things first: This link contains all that you need to know, but hey, maybe you'll find my take more amusing.
So let's start with the main issue.

Signature Replay Attack

The above is the Signature Replay Attack, and the reason why SIGHASH_NOINPUT has triggered debate as to whether it is safe at all and whether we can add enough stuff to it to ever make it safe.
Now of course you could point to SIGHASH_NONE which is even worse because all it does is say "I am authorizing the spend of this particular coin of this particular value protected by my key" without any further restrictions like which outputs it goes to. But then SIGHASH_NONE is intended to be used to sacrifice your money to the miners, for example if it's a dust attack trying to get you to spend, so you broadcast a SIGHASH_NONE signature and some enterprising miner will go get a bunch of such SIGHASH_NONE signatures and gather up the dust in a transaction that pays to nobody and gets all the funds as fees. And besides; even if we already have something you could do stupid things with, it's not a justification for adding more things you could do stupid things with.
So yes, SIGHASH_NOINPUT makes Bitcoin more powerful. Now, Bitcoin is a strong believer in "Principle of Least Power". So adding more power to Bitcoin via SIGHASH_NOINPUT is a violation of Principle of Least Power, at least to those arguing to add even more limits to SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
I believe nullc is one of those who strongly urges for adding more limits to SIGHASH_NOINPUT, because it distracts him from taking pictures of his autonomous non-human neighbor, a rather handsome gray fox, but also because it could be used as the excuse for the next MtGox, where a large exchange inadvertently pays to SIGHASH_NOINPUT-using addresses and becomes liable/loses track of their funds when signature replay happens.

Output Tagging

Making SIGHASH_NOINPUT safer by not allowing normal addresses use it.
Basically, we have 32 different SegWit versions. The current SegWit addresses are v0, the next version (v1) is likely to be the Schnorr+Taproot+MAST thing.
What output tagging proposes is to limit SegWit version ranges from 0->15 in the bech32 address scheme (instead of 0->31 it currently has). Versions 16 to 31 are then not valid bech32 SegWit addresses and exchanges shouldn't pay to it.
Then, we allow the use of SIGHASH_NOINPUT only for version 16. Version 16 might very well be Schnorr+Taproot+MAST, with a side serving of SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
This is basically output tagging. SIGHASH_NOINPUT can only be used if the output is tagged (by paying to version 16 SegWit) to allow it, and addresses do not allow outputs to be tagged as such, removing the potential liability of large custodial services like exchanges.
Now, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun channels have two options:
The tradeoffs in this case are:
The latter tradeoff is probably what would be taken (because we're willing to pay for privacy) if Bitcoin Core decides in favor of tagged outputs.
Another issue here is --- oops, P2SH-Segwit wrapped addresses. P2SH can be used to wrap any SegWit payment script, including payments to any SegWit version, including v16. So now you can sneak in a SIGHASH_NOINPUT-enabled SegWit v16 inside an ordinary P2SH that wraps a SegWit payment. One easy way to close this is just to disallow P2SH-SegWit from being valid if it's spending to SegWit version >= 16.

Chaperone Signatures

Closing the Signature Replay Attack by adding a chaperone.
Now we can observe that the Signature Replay Attack is possible because only one signature is needed, and that signature allows any coin of appropriate value to be spent.
Adding a chaperone signature simply means requiring that the SCRIPT involved have at least two OP_CHECKSIG operations. If one signature is SIGHASH_NOINPUT, then at least one other signature (the chaperone) validated by the SCRIPT should be SIGHASH_ALL.
This is not so onerous for Decker-Russell-Osuntokun. Both sides can use a MuSig of their keys, to be used for the SIGHASH_NOINPUT signature (so requires both of them to agree on a particular update), then use a shared ECDH key, to be used for the SIGHASH_ALL signature (allows either of them to publish the unilateral close once the update has been agreed upon).
Of course, the simplest thing to do would be for a BOLT spec to say "just use this spec-defined private key k so we can sidestep the Chaperone Signatures thing". That removes the need to coordinate to define a shared ECDH key during channel establishment: just use the spec-indicated key, which is shared to all LN implementations.
But now look at what we've done! We've subverted the supposed solution of Chaperone Signatures, making them effectively not there, because it's just much easier for everyone to use a standard private key for the chaperone signature than to derive a separate new keypair for the Chaperone.
So chaperone signatures aren't much better than just doing SIGHASH_NOINPUT by itself, and you might as well just use SIGHASH_NOINPUT without adding chaperones.
I believe ajtowns is the primary proponent of this proposal.

Toys for the Big Boys

The Signature Replay Attack is Not A Problem (TM).
This position is most strongly held by RustyReddit I believe (he's the Rusty Russell in the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun). As I understand it, he is more willing to not see SIGHASH_NOINPUT enabled, than to have it enabled but with restrictions like Output Tagging or Chaperone Signatures.
Basically, the idea is: don't use SIGHASH_NOINPUT for normal wallets, in much the same way you don't use SIGHASH_NONE for normal wallets. If you want to do address reuse, don't use wallet software made by luke-jr that specifically screws with your ability to do address reuse.
SIGHASH_NOINPUT is a flag for use by responsible, mutually-consenting adults who want to settle down some satoshis and form a channel together. It is not something that immature youngsters should be playing around with, not until they find a channel counterparty that will treat this responsibility properly. And if those immature youngsters playing with their SIGHASH_NOINPUT flags get into trouble and, you know, lose their funds (as fooling around with SIGHASH_NOINPUT is wont to do), well, they need counseling and advice ("not your keys not your coins", "hodl", "SIGHASH_NOINPUT is not a toy, but something special, reserved for those willing to take on the responsibility of making channels according to the words of Decker-Russell-Osuntokun"...).

Conclusion

Dunno yet. It's still being debated! So yeah. SIGHASH_NOINPUT isn't moving, just like Bitcoin's price!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Luke-Jr, please at least cite your crazy wiki edits

Luke-Jr, please at least cite your crazy wiki edits submitted by GrainElevator to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2019-01-06 to 2020-01-05 11:19 PDT

Period: 363.85 days
Submissions Comments
Total 1000 86748
Rate (per day) 2.75 237.19
Unique Redditors 317 7747
Combined Score 194633 356658

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 31014 points, 162 submissions: Egon_1
    1. Vitalik Buterin to Core Maxi: “ok bitcoiner” .... (515 points, 206 comments)
    2. These men are serving life without parole in max security prison for nonviolent drug offenses. They helped me through a difficult time in a very dark place. I hope 2019 was their last year locked away from their loved ones. FreeRoss.org/lifers/ Happy New Year. (502 points, 237 comments)
    3. "It’s official Burger King just accepted Bitcoin Cash and GoC token as a payment option in Slovenia." (423 points, 112 comments)
    4. "HOLY SATOSHI! 😱😱 I did it! A smart card that produces valid BitcoinCash signatures. Who would love to pay with a card—to a phone?? Tap took less than a second!👟..." (368 points, 105 comments)
    5. Chrome 'Has Become Surveillance Software. It's Time to Switch' -> Brave to support BCH! (330 points, 97 comments)
    6. Gavin Andresen (2017): "Running a network near 100% capacity is irresponsible engineering... " (316 points, 117 comments)
    7. "Evidently @github has banned all the Iranian users without an ability for them to download their repositories. A service like Github must be a public good and must not be controlled by a centralized entity. Another great example of why we as a society need to make web3 a reality" (314 points, 117 comments)
    8. Roger Ver: "Bitcoin Cash acceptance is coming to thousands of physical shops in Korea" (313 points, 120 comments)
    9. Paul Sztorc: “Will people really spend $70-$700 to open/modify a lightning channel when there's an Altcoin down the street which will process a (USD-denominated) payment for $0.05 ? Many people seem to think yes but honestly I just don't get it” (306 points, 225 comments)
    10. Food For Thought (303 points, 105 comments)
  2. 29021 points, 157 submissions: MemoryDealers
    1. Bitcoin Cash is Lightning Fast! (No editing needed) (436 points, 616 comments)
    2. Brains..... (423 points, 94 comments)
    3. Meanwhile in Hong Kong (409 points, 77 comments)
    4. Ross Ulbricht has served 6 years in federal prison. (382 points, 156 comments)
    5. Just another day at the Bitcoin Cash accepting super market in Slovenia. (369 points, 183 comments)
    6. Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers. (369 points, 207 comments)
    7. History Reminder: (354 points, 245 comments)
    8. It's more decentralized this way. (341 points, 177 comments)
    9. The new Bitcoin Cash wallet is so fast!!!!! (327 points, 197 comments)
    10. The IRS wants to subpoena Apple and Google to see if you have downloaded crypto currency apps. (324 points, 178 comments)
  3. 6909 points, 37 submissions: BitcoinXio
    1. Tim Pool on Twitter: “How the fuck are people justifying creating a world like the one's depicted in Fahrenheit 451 and 1984? You realize that censorship and banning information was a key aspect of the dystopian nightmare right?” (435 points, 75 comments)
    2. The creator of the now famous HODL meme says that the HODL term has been corrupted and doesn’t mean what he intended; also mentions that the purpose of Bitcoin is to spend it and that BTC has lost its value proposition. (394 points, 172 comments)
    3. Erik Voorhees on Twitter: “I wonder if you realize that if Bitcoin didn’t work well as a payment system in the early days it likely would not have taken off. Many (most?) people found the concept of instant borderless payments captivating and inspiring. “Just hold this stuff” not sufficient.” (302 points, 66 comments)
    4. Bitfinex caught paying a company to astroturf on social media including Reddit, Twitter, Medium and other platforms (285 points, 86 comments)
    5. WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
    6. Craig Wright seems to have rage quit Twitter (252 points, 172 comments)
    7. No surprise here: Samson Mow among other BTC maxi trolls harassed people to the point of breakdown (with rape threats, etc) (249 points, 85 comments)
    8. On Twitter: “PSA: The Lightning Network is being heavily data mined right now. Opening channels allows anyone to cluster your wallet and associate your keys with your IP address.” (228 points, 102 comments)
    9. btc is being targeted and attacked, yet again (220 points, 172 comments)
    10. Brian Armstrong CEO of Coinbase using Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to pay for food, video in tweet (219 points, 66 comments)
  4. 6023 points, 34 submissions: money78
    1. BSV in a nutshell... (274 points, 60 comments)
    2. There is something going on with @Bitcoin twitter account: 1/ The URL of the white paper has been changed from bitcoin.com into bitcoin.org! 2/ @Bitcoin has unfollowed all other BCH related accounts. 3/ Most of the posts that refer to "bitcoin cash" have been deleted?!! Is it hacked again?! (269 points, 312 comments)
    3. "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow." (262 points, 130 comments)
    4. Jonathan Toomim: "At 32 MB, we can handle something like 30% of Venezuela's population using BCH 2x per day. Even if that's all BCH ever achieved, I'd call that a resounding success; that's 9 million people raised out of poverty. Not a bad accomplishment for a hundred thousand internet geeks." (253 points, 170 comments)
    5. Jonathan Toomim: "BCH will not allow block sizes that are large enough to wreak havoc. We do our capacity engineering before lifting the capacity limits. BCH's limit is 32 MB, which the network can handle. BSV does not share this approach, and raises limits before improving actual capacity." (253 points, 255 comments)
    6. What Bitcoin Cash has accomplished so far 💪 (247 points, 55 comments)
    7. Which one is false advertising and misleading people?! Bitcoin.com or Bitcoin.org (232 points, 90 comments)
    8. A message from Lightning Labs: "Don't put more money on lightning than you're willing to lose!" (216 points, 118 comments)
    9. Silk Road’s Ross Ulbricht thanks Bitcoin Cash’s [BCH] Roger Ver for campaigning for his release (211 points, 29 comments)
    10. This account just donated more than $6600 worth of BCH via @tipprbot to multiple organizations! (205 points, 62 comments)
  5. 4514 points, 22 submissions: unstoppable-cash
    1. Reminder: bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" (436 points, 89 comments)
    2. Peter R. Rizun: "LN User walks into a bank, says "I need a loan..." (371 points, 152 comments)
    3. It was SO simple... Satoshi had the answer to prevent full-blocks back in 2010! (307 points, 150 comments)
    4. REMINDER: "Bitcoin isn't for people that live on less than $2/day" -Samson Mow, CSO of BlockStream (267 points, 98 comments)
    5. "F'g insane... waited 5 hrs and still not 1 confirmation. How does anyone use BTC over BCH BitcoinCash?" (258 points, 222 comments)
    6. Irony:"Ave person won't be running LN routing node" But CORE/BTC said big-blocks bad since everyone can't run their own node (256 points, 161 comments)
    7. BitPay: "The Wikimedia Foundation had been accepting Bitcoin for several years but recently switched pmt processors to BitPay so they can now accept Bitcoin Cash" (249 points, 61 comments)
    8. FreeTrader: "Decentralization is dependent on widespread usage..." (195 points, 57 comments)
    9. The FLIPPENING: Fiat->OPEN Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash! Naomi Brockwell earning more via BitBacker than Patreon! (193 points, 12 comments)
    10. LN Commentary from a guy that knows a thing or 2 about Bitcoin (Gavin Andresen-LEAD developer after Satoshi left in 2010) (182 points, 80 comments)
  6. 3075 points, 13 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo! (410 points, 166 comments)
    2. Chess.com used to accept Bitcoin payments but, like many other businesses, disabled the option. After some DMs with an admin there, I'm pleased to announce that they now accept Bitcoin Cash! (354 points, 62 comments)
    3. WSJ: Bitfinex Used Tether Reserves to Mask Missing $850 Million, Probe Finds (348 points, 191 comments)
    4. Bitcoiners: Then and Now [MEME CONTEST - details in comments] (323 points, 72 comments)
    5. I'd post this to /Bitcoin but they would just remove it right away (also I'm banned) (320 points, 124 comments)
    6. So this is happening at the big protest in Hong Kong right now (270 points, 45 comments)
    7. /Bitcoin mods are censoring posts that explain why BitPay has to charge an additional fee when accepting BTC payments (219 points, 110 comments)
    8. The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
    9. The Bitcoin whitepaper was published 11 years ago today. Check out this comic version of the whitepaper, one of the best "ELI5" explanations out there. (153 points, 12 comments)
    10. Two Years™ is the new 18 Months™ (142 points, 113 comments)
  7. 2899 points, 18 submissions: jessquit
    1. Oh, the horror! (271 points, 99 comments)
    2. A few days ago I caught flak for reposting a set of graphs that didn't have their x-axes correctly labeled or scaled. tvand13 made an updated graph with correct labeling and scaling. I am reposting it as I promised. I invite the viewer to draw their own conclusions. (214 points, 195 comments)
    3. Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
    4. Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
    5. PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
    6. Nobody uses Bitcoin Cash (182 points, 88 comments)
    7. Double-spend proofs, SPV fraud proofs, and Cashfusion improvements all on the same day! 🏅 BCH PLS! 🏅 (165 points, 36 comments)
    8. [repost] a reminder on how btc and Bitcoin Cash came to be (150 points, 102 comments)
    9. Holy shit the entire "negative with gold" sub has become a shrine devoted to the guilded astroturfing going on in rbtc (144 points, 194 comments)
    10. This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
  8. 2839 points, 13 submissions: SwedishSalsa
    1. With Bitcoin, for the first time in modern history, we have a way to opt out. (356 points, 100 comments)
    2. In this age of rampant censorship and control, this is why I love Bitcoin. (347 points, 126 comments)
    3. The crypto expert (303 points, 29 comments)
    4. Satoshi reply to Mike Hearn, April 2009. Everybody, especially newcomers and r-bitcoin-readers should take a step back and read this. (284 points, 219 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Cash looking good lately. (235 points, 33 comments)
    6. Roger Ver bad (230 points, 61 comments)
    7. History of the BTC scaling debate (186 points, 54 comments)
    8. MFW i read Luke Jr wants to limit BTC blocks to 300k. (183 points, 116 comments)
    9. Meanwhile over at bitcoinsv... (163 points, 139 comments)
    10. Listen people... (155 points, 16 comments)
  9. 2204 points, 10 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. China bans Bitcoin again, and again, and again (426 points, 56 comments)
    2. China bans Bitcoin (again) (292 points, 35 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Cash Network has now been upgraded! (238 points, 67 comments)
    4. So you want small blocks with high fees to validate your own on chain transactions that happen OFF CHAIN? (212 points, 112 comments)
    5. It’s happening - BTC dev Luke jr writing code to Bitcoin BTC codebase to fork to lower the block size to 300kb! (204 points, 127 comments)
    6. Former BTC maximalist admits that maxi's lied cheated and stealed to get SegWit and Lightning (201 points, 135 comments)
    7. Just 18 more months to go! (172 points, 86 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Cash ring - F*CK BANKS (167 points, 51 comments)
    9. LTC Foundation chat leaked: no evidence of development, lack of transparency (155 points, 83 comments)
    10. A single person controls nearly half of all the Lightning Network’s capacity (137 points, 109 comments)
  10. 2138 points, 12 submissions: JonyRotten
    1. 'Craig Is a Liar' – Early Adopter Proves Ownership of Bitcoin Address Claimed by Craig Wright (309 points, 165 comments)
    2. 200,000 People Have Signed Ross Ulbricht's Clemency Petition (236 points, 102 comments)
    3. Street Artist Hides $1,000 in BTC Inside a Mural Depicting Paris Protests (236 points, 56 comments)
    4. Craig Wright Ordered to Produce a List of Early Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Lawsuit (189 points, 66 comments)
    5. Ross Ulbricht Clemency Petition Gathers 250,000 Signatures (163 points, 24 comments)
    6. Ross Ulbricht Letter Questions the Wisdom of Imprisoning Non-Violent Offenders (160 points, 50 comments)
    7. Expert Witness in Satoshi Case Claims Dr Wright's Documents Were Doctored (155 points, 44 comments)
    8. California City Official Uses Bitcoin Cash to Purchase Cannabis (151 points, 36 comments)
    9. Money Transmitter License Not Required for Crypto Businesses in Pennsylvania (141 points, 9 comments)
    10. McAfee to Launch Decentralized Token Exchange With No Restrictions (137 points, 35 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. jessquit (16708 points, 2083 comments)
  2. Ant-n (7878 points, 1517 comments)
  3. MemoryDealers (7366 points, 360 comments)
  4. Egon_1 (6205 points, 1001 comments)
  5. 500239 (5745 points, 735 comments)
  6. BitcoinXio (4640 points, 311 comments)
  7. LovelyDay (4353 points, 457 comments)
  8. chainxor (4293 points, 505 comments)
  9. MobTwo (3420 points, 174 comments)
  10. ShadowOfHarbringer (3388 points, 478 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. The perfect crypto t-shirt by Korben (742 points, 68 comments)
  2. The future of Libra Coin by themadscientistt (722 points, 87 comments)
  3. when you become a crypto trader... by forberniesnow (675 points, 54 comments)
  4. A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google. by InMyDayTVwasBooks (637 points, 209 comments)
  5. Imagine if in 2000 Apple just sat around all day shit-talking Microsoft. Apple would have never gone anywhere. Apple succeeded because they learned from their mistakes, improved, and got better. BCH should do the same. by guyfawkesfp (552 points, 255 comments)
  6. Bitcoin made The Simpsons intro! Sorry for the potato quality by Johans_wilgat (521 points, 44 comments)
  7. Vitalik Buterin to Core Maxi: “ok bitcoiner” .... by Egon_1 (515 points, 206 comments)
  8. Can't stop won't stop by Greentoboggan (514 points, 78 comments)
  9. These men are serving life without parole in max security prison for nonviolent drug offenses. They helped me through a difficult time in a very dark place. I hope 2019 was their last year locked away from their loved ones. FreeRoss.org/lifers/ Happy New Year. by Egon_1 (502 points, 237 comments)
  10. Blockchain? by unesgt (479 points, 103 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
  2. 203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
  3. 179 points: Chris_Pacia's comment in The BSV chain has just experienced a 6-block reorg
  4. 163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
  5. 161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
  6. 156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻‍♂️
  7. 155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
  8. 151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
  9. 147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
  10. 147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell: "a hasty snapshot of a few of my views"

Original comment here: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/divtc93/
Copy:

Well, a hasty snapshot of a few of my views, others my differ (though opposition to that "agreement" looks like it may be unamious):
  1. It was unethically conducted: A VC created a private and closed meeting with his investments in the Bitcoin space and a few others without public input; and they made an agreement to forcefully change the rules of Bitcoin. Hello Etherum Foundation (Ironic that the same person was the big driver on ethereum classic). They claim that "core devs" were "invited" but this is misleading enough to be an outright lie: We were asked to add our names to an already completed statement with a dozen other parties names already on it (so, so much for getting it to say something more sensible). It has been promoted with misleading claims of collaboration and support by Bitcoin Core folks, which are just untrue.
  2. It's unspecified. The actual signers of the agreement clearly disagree about what they actually agreed to. While "segwit+2mb" may sound like it means something to you-- it doesn't mean much. Under that banner you could do something fairly reasonable or something terrible [Fairly reasonable, for example would be to activate segwit, then with a reasonable timeframe hardfork to account for scriptSig data the same way that witness data is accounted for]. The details matter. Critically. Perhaps this was partially as a result of forming their agreement without a single participant with ANY experience in Bitcoin consensus rule design-- they didn't even know what you need to know about a protocol change.
  3. Its time-frame is extremely absurd. Actually, absurd doesn't do it justice which is why between that and number #1 several engineers have been just responding "LOL" to the proposal. They don't set any time for design review and analysis, they don't set any time for writing a specification (they don't have one and don't appear to intend to have one), they set aside two weeks for testing-- which is less time than even minor releases of Bitcoin get (and need!) even when they were comprised of small fixes which had mostly existed for months already. They don't allot any time for alternative implementations to implement it (which is especially bad because they can provide useful design feedback). They don't set aside time for meaningful deployment by users (some of whom may have their own lengthy patching and qualification process). They don't seem to have any concern about how forced upgrades erode decentralization and privileged hosted wallets/apis/pools over running your own infrastructure. Basically every stage of the consensus rule change pipeline should take (and always has taken) more time they allotted for everything. BU+Classic BIP109 ran on testnet for months before their interoperability failure was revealed and they forked apart from each other and abandon BIP109.
  4. They are explicitly rejecting and shielding themselves from public comment. E.g. they created a lf mailing list but when Luke-jr tried to join it Jeff replied saying the list was only for people who supported the agreement and intended to support it. Responses to requests to make their system compatible with BIP141 or BIP148 and existing nodes; have just been met with vague hand-waving about the "charter" and deleting comments on their github. This is doubly bad because some of their technical proposals just won't work and will self partition if deployed.
  5. It doesn't answer any of the serious concerns about the negative impact of increased capacity on the viability of the system, it just takes the capacity doubling of segwit (which is already seen by many as pretty extreme) and doubles it again. Some of the signers seemed to believe that what they agreed to was "segwit immediately" which at least would give some walk-before-running time but to the extent that I can figure out what they're doing, it isn't that. Keep in mind that segwit itself was a massive compromise-- taking on a large and risky increase in load, but countering it with scalability improvements... and as soon as it was proposed the goalpost moved. I doubt many see segwit2x as anything else.
  6. Bitcoin's value comes significantly from its durability against change. Bitcoin is fine the way it is-- it could be even better, but it doesn't need to make radical incompatible hasty changes. Everyone who wants cabal-controlled fork-a-week coins have several options to choose from. Bitcoin is never going to be better at being that than the cruddy altcoins which were designed for it (with huge premines to keep those early holders pumping through the waves of technical failure). In a competitive market we should look at what differentiates Bitcoin from the competition and exploit that as much as we can, not try to me-too follow around other things. If Barry and Co can rewrite Bitcoin's rules against non-trivial opposition who else can also do so?
  7. Bitcoin Core doesn't have the technical or moral authority to make incompatible changes to the rules of the network. And the dozens of major individual contributors just do not personally support this proposal (for some of the reasons above or others)-- and are obviously not going to volunteer their efforts to aid a proposal which they believe would harm Bitcoin. Probably this one would be the TLDR: Core isn't a company, it is an open public collaboration of many people. Core won't endorse pretty much anything but it certainly won't endorse things which are widely (or in this case nearly unanimously) opposed by its contributors.
  8. None of the involved parties have showed even the slightest indication that they understood or cared about concerns like the above, even when people like Matt wasted hours trying to communicate them to them. Not a "I understand but we'll account for that by X"-- but just talking to a wall. Which means that its unlikely that the negative consequences of these concerns will be avoided with any reliability.
But finally-- what would be the point? I think that almost any one of these issues alone would make it dead on arrival. I'd say stick a fork in it, but Bitmain already has-- e.g. their post today says they have no intention on following through with segwit2x by saying they'd only activate segwit if it had more modifications (surprise, surprise).
The tech community was polite enough to keep most of our concerns in private and wait and see it this transformed into something supportable. But we've started speaking against it since the misleading claims that we supported and were collaborating with it started.
Cheers,

submitted by jaumenuez to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

New BIP for the implementation of the Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement (ie. New York/Silbert) includes BIP148 UASF (August 1st SegWit activation) and a 2mB hard-fork locking in 6 months thereafter

See Calvin Rechner's BIP: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal.
Signalling is via the string "COOP."
Here is some of the BIP in question:

Abstract

This document describes a virtuous combination of James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2], Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3], Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal, Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5], and hard fork safety mechanisms from Johnson Lau’s “Spoonnet”[6][7] into a single omnibus proposal and patchset.
...

Specification

Proposal Signaling
The string “COOP” is included anywhere in the txn-input (scriptSig) of the coinbase-txn to signal compatibility and support.
Soft Fork
Fast-activation (segsignal): deployed by a "version bits" with an 80% activation threshold BIP9 with the name "segsignal" and using bit 4... [with a] start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in.[2]
Flag-day activation (BIP148): While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected... This BIP will be active between midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch time 1501545600) and midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000) if the existing segwit deployment is not locked-in or activated before epoch time 1501545600. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in. While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected.[3]
Hard Fork
The hard fork deployment is scheduled to occur 6 months after SegWit activates:
(HardForkHeight = SEGWIT_ACTIVE_BLOCK_HEIGHT + 26280)
For blocks equal to or higher than HardForkHeight, Luke-Jr’s legacy witness discount and 2MB limit are enacted, along with the following Spoonnet-based improvements[6][7]:

Deployment

Deployment of the “fast-activation” soft fork is exactly identical to Hilliard’s segsignal proposal[2]. Deployment of the “flag-day” soft fork is exactly identical to Fry’s BIP148 proposal[3]. HardForkHeight is defined as 26280 blocks after SegWit is set to ACTIVE. All blocks with height greater than or equal to this value must adhere to the consensus rules of the 2MB hard fork.

Backwards compatibility

This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight November 15th, 2017.
To prevent the risk of building on top of invalid blocks, miners should upgrade their nodes to support segsignal as well as BIP148.
The intent of this proposal is to maintain full legacy consensus compatibility for users up until the HardForkHeight block height, after which backwards compatibility is waived as enforcement of the hard fork consensus ruleset begins.
I will expound upon this later, but I support this proposal. Primarily because it includes BIP148 UASF, secondarily because it includes a 2mB blocksize increase, which I support in principle (I am a big blocker but opposed to divergent consensus.)
submitted by AltF to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Lightning Network Will Likely Fail Due To Several Possible Reasons

ECONOMIC CASE IS ABSENT FOR MANY TRANSACTIONS
The median Bitcoin (BTC) fee is $14.41 currently. This has gone parabolic in the past few days. So, let’s use a number before this parabolic rise, which was $3.80. Using this number, opening and closing a Lightning Network (LN) channel means that you will pay $7.60 in fees. Most likely, the fee will be much higher for two reasons:
  1. BTC fees have been trending higher all year and will be higher by the time LN is ready
  2. When you are in the shoe store or restaurant, you will likely pay a higher fee so that you are not waiting there for one or more hours for confirmation.
Let’s say hypothetically that Visa or Paypal charges $1 per transaction. This means that Alice and Carol would need to do 8 or more LN transactions, otherwise it would be cheaper to use Visa or Paypal.
But it gets worse. Visa doesn’t charge the customer. To you, Visa and Cash are free. You would have no economic incentive to use BTC and LN.
Also, Visa does not charge $1 per transaction. They charge 3%, which is 60 cents on a $20 widget. Let’s say that merchants discount their widgets by 60 cents for non-Visa purchases, to pass the savings onto the customer. Nevertheless, no one is going to use BTC and LN to buy the widget unless 2 things happen:
  1. they buy more than 13 widgets from the same store ($7.60 divided by 60 cents)
  2. they know ahead of time that they will do this with that same store
This means that if you’re traveling, or want to tip content producers on the internet, you will likely not use BTC and LN. If you and your spouse want to try out a new restaurant, you will not use BTC and LN. If you buy shoes, you will not use BTC and LN.
ROAD BLOCKS FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
Some argue that you do not need to open a channel to everyone, if there’s a route to that merchant. This article explains that if LN is a like a distributed mesh network, then another problem exists:
"third party needs to possess the necessary capital to process the transaction. If Alice and Bob do not have an open channel, and Alice wants to send Bob .5 BTC, they'll both need to be connected to a third party (or a series of 3rd parties). Say if Charles (the third party) only possesses .4 BTC in his respective payment channels with the other users, the transaction will not be able to go through that route. The longer the route, the more likely that a third party does not possess the requisite amount of BTC, thereby making it a useless connection.”
CENTRALIZATION
According to this visualization of LN on testnet, LN will be centralized around major hubs. It might be even more centralized than this visualization if the following are true:
  1. Users will want to connect to large hubs to minimize the number of times they need to open/close channels, which incur fees
  2. LN’s security and usability relies on 100% uptime of relaying parties
  3. Only large hubs with a lot of liquidity will be able to make money
  4. Hubs or intermediary nodes will need to be licensed as money transmitters, centralizing LN to exchanges and banks as large hubs
What will the impact be on censorship-resistance, trust-less and permission-less?
NEED TO BE LICENSED AS MONEY TRANSMITTER
Advocates for LN seem to talk a lot about the technology, but ignore the legalities.
FinCEN defines money transmitters. LN hubs and intermediary nodes seem to satisfy this definition.
Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
“…applicability of the regulations … to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.”
“…an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter…”
"An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations…”
"FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means.””
"The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.”
FinCEN’s regulations for IVTS:
"An “informal value transfer system” refers to any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.”
“…IVTS… must comply with all BSA registration, recordkeeping, reporting and AML program requirements.
“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are transferred on behalf of the public by any and all means including, but not limited to, transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…regulations require all money transmitting businesses…to register with FinCEN."
Mike Caldwell used to accept and mail bitcoins. Customers sent him bitcoins and he mailed physical bitcoins back or to a designated recipient. There is no exchange from one type of currency to another. FinCEN told him that he needed to be licensed as money transmitter, after which Caldwell stopped mailing out bitcoins.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEED FOR LICENSING
Some have argued that LN does not transfer BTC until the channel is closed on the blockchain. This is not a defence, since channels will close on the blockchain.
Some have argued that LN nodes do not take ownership of funds. Is this really true? Is this argument based on a technicality or hoping for a loophole? It seems intuitive that a good prosecutor can easily defeat this argument. Even if this loophole exists, can we count on the government to never close this loophole?
So, will LN hubs and intermediary nodes need to be licensed as money transmitters? If so, then Bob, who is the intermediary between Alice and Carol, will need a license. But Bob won’t have the money nor qualifications. Money transmitters need to pay $25,000 to $1 million, maintain capital levels and are subject to KYC/AML regulations1. In which case, LN will have mainly large hubs, run by financial firms, such as banks and exchanges.
Will the banks want this? Likely. Will they lobby the government to get it? Likely.
Some may be wondering about miners. FinCEN has declared that miners are not money transmitters:
https://coincenter.org/entry/aml-kyc-tokens :
"Subsequent administrative rulings clarified several remaining ambiguities: miners are not money transmitters…"
FinCEN Declares Bitcoin Miners, Investors Aren't Money Transmitters
Some argue that LN nodes will go through Tor and be anonymous. For this to work, will all of the nodes connecting to it, need to run Tor? If so, then how likely will this happen and will all of these people need to run Tor on every device (laptop, phone and tablet)? Furthermore, everyone of these people will be need to be sufficiently tech savvy to download, install and set up Tor. Will the common person be able to do this? Also, will law-abiding nodes, such as retailers or banks, risk their own livelihood by connecting to an illegal node? What is the likelihood of this?
Some argue that unlicensed LN hubs can run in foreign countries. Not true. According to FinCEN: "“Money transmitting” occurs when funds are…transfers within the United States or to locations abroad…” Also, foreign companies are not immune from the laws of other countries which have extradition agreements. The U.S. government has sued European banks over the LIBOR scandal. The U.S. government has charged foreign banks for money laundering and two of those banks pleaded guilty. Furthermore, most countries have similar laws. It is no coincidence that European exchanges comply with KYC/AML.
Will licensed, regulated LN hubs connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. Will Amazon or eBay connect to LN nodes behind Tor or in foreign countries? Unlikely. If you want to buy from Amazon, you’ll likely need to register yourself at a licensed, regulated LN hub, which means you’ll need to provide your identification photo.
Say goodbye to a censorship-resistant, trust-less and permission-less coin.
For a preview of what LN will probably look like, look at Coinbase or other large exchanges. It’s a centralized, regulated and censored hub. Coinbase allows users to send to each other off-chain. Coinbase provides user data to the IRS and disallows users from certain countries to sell BTC. You need to trust that no rogue employee in the exchange will steal your funds, or that a bank will not confiscate your funds as banks did in Cyprus. What if the government provides a list of users, who are late with their tax returns, to Coinbase and tells Coinbase to block those users from making transactions? You need Coinbase’s permission.
This would be the antithesis of why Satoshi created Bitcoin.
NEED TO REPORT TO IRS
The IRS has a definition for “third party settlement organization” and these need to report transactions to the IRS.
Though we do not know for sure yet, it can be argued that LN hubs satisfies this definition. If this is the case, who will be willing to be LN hubs, other than banks and exchanges?
To read about the discussion, go to:
Lightning Hubs Will Need To Report To IRS
COMPLEXITY
All cryptocurrencies are complicated for the common person. You may be tech savvy enough to find a secure wallet and use cryptocurrencies, but the masses are not as tech savvy as you.
LN adds a very complicated and convoluted layer to cryptocurrencies. It is bound to have bugs for years to come and it’s complicated to use. This article provides a good explanation of the complexity. Just from the screenshot of the app, the user now needs to learn additional terms and commands:
“On Chain”
“In Channels”
“In Limbo”
“Your Channel”
“Create Channel”
“CID”
“OPENING”
“PENDING-OPEN”
“Available to Receive”
“PENDING-FORCE-CLOSE”
There are also other things to learn, such as how funds need to be allocated to channels and time locks. Compare this to using your current wallet.
Recently, LN became even more complicated and convoluted. It needs a 3rd layer as well:
Scaling Bitcoin Might Require A Whole 'Nother Layer
How many additional steps does a user need to learn?
ALL COINS PLANNING OFF-CHAIN SCALING ARE AT RISK
Bitcoin Segwit, Litecoin, Vertcoin and possibly others (including Bitcoin Cash) are planning to implement LN or layer 2 scaling. Ethereum is planning to use Raiden Network, which is very similar to LN. If the above is true about LN, then the scaling roadmap for these coins is questionable at best, nullified at worst.
BLOCKSTREAM'S GAME PLAN IS ON TRACK
Blockstream employs several of the lead Bitcoin Core developers. Blockstream has said repeatedly that they want high fees. Quotes and source links can be found here.
Why is Blockstream so adamant on small blocks, high fees and off-chain scaling?
Small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations create demand for off-chain solutions, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. LN will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This will be the main way that Blockstream will generate revenue for its investors, who invested $76 million. Otherwise, they can go bankrupt and die.
One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by bankers and politicians (former prime ministers and nation leaders). According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” LN helps Bilderberg Group get one step closer to its goal.
Luke-Jr is one of the lead BTC developers in Core/Blockstream. Regulation of BTC is in-line with his beliefs. He is a big believer in the government, as he believes that the government should tax you and the “State has authority from God”. In fact, he has other radical beliefs as well:
So, having only large, regulated LN hubs is not a failure for Blockstream/Bilderberg. It’s a success. The title of this article should be changed to: "Lightning Will Fail Or Succeed, Depending On Whether You Are Satoshi Or Blockstream/Bilderberg".
SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENTS WITH ON-CHAIN SCALING
Meanwhile, some coins such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash are pushing ahead with on-chain scaling. Both are looking at Sharding.
Visa handles 2,000 transactions per second on average. Blockstream said that on-chain scaling will not work. The development teams for Bitcoin Cash have shown significant on-chain scaling:
1 GB block running on testnet demonstrates over 10,000 transactions per second:
"we are not going from 1MB to 1GB tomorrow — The purpose of going so high is to prove that it can be done — no second layer is necessary”
"Preliminary Findings Demonstrate Over 10,000 Transactions Per Second"
"Gigablock testnet initiative will likely be implemented first on Bitcoin Cash”
Peter Rizun, Andrew Stone -- 1 GB Block Tests -- Scaling Bitcoin Stanford At 13:55 in this video, Rizun said that he thinks that Visa level can be achieved with a 4-core/16GB machine with better implementations (modifying the code to take advantage of parallelization.)
Bitcoin Cash plans to fix malleability and enable layer 2 solutions:
The Future of “Bitcoin Cash:” An Interview with Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Séchet:
"fixing malleability and enabling Layer 2 solutions will happen”
However, it is questionable if layer 2 will work or is needed.
GOING FORWARD
The four year scaling debate and in-fighting is what caused small blockers (Blockstream) to fork Bitcoin by adding Segwit and big blockers to fork Bitcoin into Bitcoin Cash. Read:
Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained
It will be interesting to see how they scale going forward.
Scaling will be instrumental in getting network effect and to be widely adopted as a currency. Whichever Coin Has The Most Network Effect Will Take All (Or Most) (BTC has little network effect, and it's shrinking.)
The ability to scale will be key to the long term success of any coin.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - December 2018

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 24th monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in December 2018
Adoption * Some statistics on Localbitcoins in Venezuela (2 Dec) * The Lightning Network has grown from 4 btc capacity to 450 since February (5 Dec) * Cash App by Square is the #1 app in the US app store (8 Dec) * Someone buys drinks using bitcoin in a bar in Paris (12 Dec) * The Lightning Network reaches 500 btc in network capacity (21 Dec) * A visualization of 15k lightning network channels (23 Dec) * Several content creators are being banned or abandoning Patreon and considering bitcoin (27 Dec)
Development * A list of possible future changes to Bitcoin by Luke Dash Jr (6 Dec) * Someone creates a Lightning Network micropayment button (7 Dec) * A discussion on the LNTipBot (8 Dec) * The rise of the all-in-one Bitcoin & Lightning node (10 Dec) * The first Bitcoin Lightning to ERC20 Atomic Swap (12 Dec) * A discussion on Schnorr and Taproot on the Bitcoin development mailing list (14 Dec) * Bitcoin Core 0.17.1 is released (25 Dec) * Someone creates an offline tool that fixes mistyped private keys or fixes missing characters (30 Dec)
Security * Some people stole $3.3M in cryptocurrency from over 100 smartphones (7 Dec) * A warning not to use single-address website-generated paper wallets (19 Dec) * Someone proposes January 3rd as an “independence day” where users should control their keys (22 Dec) * A discussion on security against quantum computing attacks in Bitcoin (25 Dec) * Someone’s Electrum Wallet got hacked through a sophisticated attack (27 Dec) * All major hardware wallets were hacked at CCC35 once the physical devices were altered (27 Dec) * A response from Trezor and Ledger on the “hackings” (28 Dec)
Mining * Bitcoin gets its second biggest drop in mining difficulty at -15% (3 Dec) * The Bitcoin mining difficulty is down 31.5% from its peak while hashrate is still increasing (21 Dec)
Business * Bitfury presents the Lightning Network coffee machine (2 Dec) * Bitmain Q3 2018 results show a $740M loss (4 Dec) * Shakepay adds a feature that turns spare change from purchases into bitcoin (13 Dec) * Blockstream satellite coverage is now worldwide (18 Dec) * Tim Draper invests $1.25M in OpenNode (18 Dec) * BlueWallet introduces the MVP of its zero-configuration Lightning payments on iOS and Android (20 Dec) * Bitmain to lay off 50% of its workforce (25 Dec) * Bakkt raises $182.5M (31 Dec)
Education * An updated beginner’s guide on how to build an online store and accept bitcoin payments without coding (1 Dec) * A video discussing the manipulation going on with the bitcoin price by financial institutions (1 Dec) * A video explainer of hashed time lock contracts and routing on the Lightning Network (9 Dec) * A discussion on exchanges and Blockchain-based identities (26 Dec) * An explanation of Lightning Network payment channels (29 Dec)
Regulation & Politics * bitcoin speculation in Denmark has a 53-65% profit tax (5 Dec) * Coinbase executives are allegedly lobbying regulators with lies about bitcoin (20 Dec) * Lawmakers want to change the SEC’s 72-year old securities definition to exclude cryptocurrency (20 Dec) * The US Chief of Staff says Bitcoin is good as it’s out of the hands of governments (17 Dec)
Archeology (Financial Incumbents) * Western Union CEO says they are prepared to add cryptocurrencies when it is necessary (18 Dec)
Price & Trading * The Japanese Yen surpasses the US Dollar as the most traded fiat pair (26 Dec) * The total profit from buying and selling bitcoin on each day of 2017 and 2018 (30 Dec)
Fun & Other * Someone wears a buy bitcoin vest at protests in Paris(1 Dec) * Bitcoin reaches 1 million subscribers (3 Dec) * A discussion on the meaning of “Hodl” (8 Dec) * Coinbase recently moved 856k bitcoins (10 Dec) * An interview with Nick Szabo (11 Dec) * 10-year jail term sought for former Mt Gox CEO Mark Karpeles (12 Dec) * Predictions from 1995 on why the Internet won’t work] (15 Dec) * Timothy C May, the writer of the Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, passes away (15 Dec) * Someone helps a user recover their funds after sending litecoin to a bitcoin address (16 Dec) * A user shows their Bitcoin full node and Lightning node (19 Dec) * Cryptograffiti sells an artwork for 1 millisatoshi (20 Dec) * A discussion on dual economies with bitcoin as the Internet currency (23 Dec) * 2018 was a successful year for Bitcoin in terms of network performance (24 Dec) * A list of a few holiday destinations that are Bitcoin-friendly (28 Dec) * How Amara’s law applies to Bitcoin (29 Dec) * A reminder of the Pineapple fund (31 Dec) * Tony Robbins tweets about Bitcoin to his 3M followers (31 Dec) * TIME magazine on why Bitcoin matters for freedom (31 Dec)
Oh yes, Happy New Year. Let's do our best to keep this subreddit a great place!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Some advice for everybody at this point in time

Hi all. I'm taking the liberty to share some hard-won experience at this point in time.

Some advice for Core and supporters

It's easy to feel resentment at this stage, having done so much work and written so much high-quality code, and yet getting a shitstorm for it. When I was leading the Swedish Pirate Party into the European Parliament, I was gradually getting used to getting a barrage of criticism grenades for everything I did and didn't do every single day, starting with when I did or didn't get out of bed in the morning.
It's very hard to explain what this does to your psyche to somebody who hasn't experienced it. Imagine everybody was out to get you, every single day, and giving you high-pitched screaming blame for everything from an orange being round to some Mongolian guy's utter misinterpretation of what you said three years ago.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that people could probably snap and go restraining-shirt-insane for much less.
But the crucial thing when you're in a leadership position like that, getting criticism for absolutely everything, is to maintain your ability to sort the relevant criticism apart from the back seat drivers who make a living out of complaining but not contributing. You've also got to trust your inner compass of the vision you want to accomplish.
From what I can tell, Core has made the common but crucial mistake of isolating itself from the community and taking on an expert attitude toward everybody else in trusting this inner vision compass over external criticism, where Core is somehow right by definition - the development happens as Core wants it, period. This is very dangerous in any open-source / free software project. Other people are just as intelligent and may have considerable experience and ability to evaluate the claims made, and these should - no, must - be taken seriously.
To illustrate just one point, let's take a look at Core's scaling solution here, Segregated Witness.
When I apply my nontrivial experience in coding and systems design - I started coding 37 years ago - I see these two options for scaling bitcoin near-term:
OPTION ONE - Change the blocksize upper limit to two megabytes. One line of code for the constant, about ten LOCs for activation trigger logic. Requires upgrading of a majority server software.
OPTION TWO - Introduce Segwit. About 500 lines of new code, of which at least 100 in the hypersensitive consensus code. Requires upgrading a majority of server software and all client/wallet software and client/wallet hardware, especially those needing to pay money to an arbitrary address (as Segwit introduces a new type of address).
When proponents of Core's scaling tell me that Option Two here is the better because it's safer, and I try to comprehend that statement, I am either utterly insane or the statement is the equivalent of "black is white and up is down". It's just not completely counter to all experience in software engineering risk management, it's so far out it doesn't reflect sunlight anymore.
When I try to understand more and challenge the assertion that option two is safer - on what I must say are very good grounds - I'm told that I should be leaving design to the experts and that I don't understand enough of the complex machine that is bitcoin. I know I am capable of learning complexities, but I am firmly told off from even trying.
That's just not how you succeed in maintaining a community. That's not how you make people want to run your code.
Of course, people are free to run whatever code they like. But the checks and balances in an open source community is simple: if the leadership for a project builds something different from what people want to run, they will run something else. It's therefore in the interest of the leadership to listen to the community to understand what software a majority wants to run. These competing interests provide the checks and balances.
Now, I understand the complexity of block transfer times through the Chinese firewall and that preliminary tests indicate that a typical full node is saturated at a blocksize of 32 megabytes. However, none of these limits will be hit by this particular scaling. Also, when blazing a trail like this, you work one problem at a time, you solve one bottleneck at a time. People have been flagging for the necessity of increasing the blocksize for ... I don't have dates here at hand, but it should be the better part of a year if not more. Further down the road, scaling node throughput capacity can be done in a number of ways from GPUing ECDSA to specialized hardware, but it's not the imminent bottleneck.
When such an enormous amount of crucial data (on the need to raise the blocksize limit) is ignored, that is done at the peril of the project.
People in the bitcoin community are intelligent geeks, capable of inhaling absurd amounts of information and cross-referencing all of it. If you are unable to explain why your solution is better than another proposed solution, people will be utterly dissatisfied with the response "because we are the experts" - for you must assume that other people in the community, in the general case, are at least as intelligent and capable of learning as you are. It's even possible that if you can't explain your solution to an open and intelligent mind, it's not a good solution.

Some advice for Classic and supporters

So it appears the hard fork is happening. A lot of people have fought hard to raise the blocksize limit for a long time, using a variety of means, and it seems to be happening at long last.
Core didn't take the last available opportunity to include a blocksize limit lift in 0.12, but have announced the release candidate without that feature. So this is it, this is when the fork happens or doesn't happen. Right now, based on announced support, the fork appears to be moving forward. A lot of people supporting Classic are feeling a lot of relief, even if people know that this effort is not done until the blocksize trigger has activated on the network. It's far from there at this point - there's not even deployed code. But everything seems to be going the right way.
It's important to reflect on how this is more than a discussion on features. This is an election of what people decide get to decide on the features, direction, quality, and vision moving forward. And as Satoshi declared, there's only one thing determining the outcome of the election: what code is producing the longest chain. That's how bitcoin's democracy works, right there.
This is not a selection of features. It's much bigger than that. It's an election of governance and stewardship into the future.
As in most elections, there has been a lot of animosity - in both directions. As heels have been dug in, ditches turned to trenches, and preferences turned into prestige, people are starting to call out each other and accuse the other side of not working for what's best for bitcoin, and actively naming specific names in negative contexts.
When those in power do this to you, you're feeling everything in the book between resentment, belittling, and outrage. It's easy to do the same thing back. There have even been suggestions that Core is deliberately sabotaging bitcoin to the benefit of ... a selection of actors.
This creates a toxic culture leading up to the election point, where people are afraid to take bitcoin-positive initiatives in anticipation of all the negative attention that follows - for in such an environment, practically all attention will be negative.
It doesn't help that people incumbent in positions of power tend to "do what they must, because they can" in order to safeguard the status quo, however small or insignificant that incumbency is - this includes everything from Theymos' deletion of discussions, via the silly DDoS attacks on XT nodes, to LukeJR's poison pull request to Classic about killing all miner hardware investment. Actions such as these are not really excusable, but they are still human: people tend to do the very human mistake of letting the ends justify the means, with the ends being what they believe is best for the bitcoin network.
Of course, other people disagree of what's best for the bitcoin network, and toxicity follows until the conflict is resolved. And beyond. The toxicity will remain until actively removed by leadership.
It is the responsibility of the winner in any rift to end a toxic animosity culture of hostilities and personal adversarialism. I cannot stress this enough.
History is full of examples where the winners refused to live alongside the losers and rebuild the world together once the conflict was resolved. It never ends well. On the other hand, where the opposite has been true - South Africa's end of segregation with Mandela as president comes to mind as a good example of leadership here - people learn to put animosity behind them.
A lot of people who have submitted code to Core (and previously) are skilled coders, after all, working from their vision. This vision doesn't have to be incompatible with Classic's vision in the slightest - it may just be a matter of slightly different feature priorities, with people intending to get everything in there anyway.
(I'd also therefore like to praise Jonathan Toomim for not engaging in the rifting but focusing on solving the problem to most people's acceptance. Real MVP right there.)

Finally, some personal reflections

Unfortunately, I believe bitcoin development has lost touch with large-scale rollout necessities over the past year or so. At the moment, there are three use cases which all new features should seek to improve:
Remittance. The act of sending money between individuals in different countries.
Drop-in credit card replacement, from the perspectives of both the payer and the merchant (two different use cases). This means that a payment must be instant, easy, and much cheaper than a credit card settlement.
These three use cases must be front left, right, and center when doing any design on the bitcoin network, as far as I'm concerned. They also reinforce each other when funds received by remittance don't have to go via fiat to be used for purchasing something.
If there's no profit to be made in using bitcoin as a drop-in replacement for credit card payments, bitcoin will not be deployed at scale. Deployment and outcompeting legacy systems depend entirely on merchant financial gains from rollout. The story begins and ends with this observation.
That's why I'm concerned when I'm looking at the features of 0.12. I don't see any features targeting one of these three use cases. Fact is, I see at least one feature severely degrading the drop-in capability of credit card replacement - RBF - and the lack of scaling severely jeopardizing, not to say ultimately removing, the profitability in replacing credit cards.
What I see is instead engineering for the sake of engineering. The question of "who's the customer?" seems to have gotten lost in the process. While it's arguable that there's no customer as such in an open source project, there's nevertheless an importance in understanding where the front bowling pins are for a disruptive technology like this - and it's certainly not in the one-time initialization time of starting up a new node. I'd argue that the front bowling pins instead are the three use cases I listed above, and would love to see a stronger focus on tangible use cases moving forward even if people disagree with my choice of cases.
Onward and upward. Bitcoin will recover and move on. Let's learn from this experience.
submitted by Falkvinge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Summary
Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it.
I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater".
SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while.
But then we all learned that:
And we also got much better solutions: such as market-based blocksize with Bitcoin Unlimited - way better than SegWit's arbitrary, random centrally-planned, too-little-too-late 1.7MB "max blocksize".
This is why more and more people are rejecting SegWit - and instead installing Bitcoin Unlimited.
In my case, as I gradually learned about the disastrous consequences which SegWit-as-a-soft-fork-hack would have, my intial single OP in December 2015 expressing outspoken support for SegWit soon turned to an avalanche of outspoken opposition to SegWit.
Details
Core / Blockstream lost my support on SegWit - and it's all their fault.
How did Core / Blockstream turn me from an outspoken SegWit supporter to an outspoken SegWit opponent?
It was simple: They made the totally unnecessary (and dangerous) decision to program SegWit as a messy and dangerous soft-fork which would:
  • create a massive new threat vector by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
  • force yet-another random / arbitrary / centrally planned "max blocksize" on everyone (previously 1 MB, now 1.7MB - still pathetically small and hard-coded!).
Meanwhile, new, independent dev teams which are smaller and much better than the corrupt, fiat-financed Core / Blockstream are offering simpler and safer solutions which are much better than SegWit:
  • For blocksize governance, we now have market-based blocksize based on emergent consensus, provided by Bitcoin Unlimited.
  • For malleability and quadratic hashing time (plus a future-proof, tag-based language similar to JSON or XML supporting much cleaner upgrades long-term), we now have Flexible Transactions (FlexTrans).
This is why We Reject SegWit because "SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history".
My rapid evolution on SegWit - as I discovered its dangers (and as we got much better alternatives, like Bitcoin Unlimited + FlexTrans):
Initially, I was one of the most outspoken supporters of SegWit - raving about it in the following OP which I posted (on Monday, December 7, 2015) immediately after seeing a presentation about it on YouTube by Pieter Wuille at one of the early Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3vt1ov/pieter_wuilles_segregated_witness_and_fraud/
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits).
So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community.
However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
  • trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
  • trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
  • trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year.
So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community.
We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork.
But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork.
The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear:
Bitcoin users are not stupid.
Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork.
And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote.
And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately.
We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack.
If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit).
Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code.
Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago.
But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences.
Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k6tke/the_tragedy_of/
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
  • Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
  • SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
  • But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
  • Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
  • This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=segwit+anyone+can+spend&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5r9cu7/the_real_question_is_how_fast_do_bugs_get_fixed/
Why are more and more people (including me!) rejecting SegWit?
(1) SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible change ever proposed for Bitcoin:
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbug3/the_scaling_argument_was_ridiculous_at_first_and/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5a7husegwitasasoftfork_is_a_hack/
(2) Better solutions than SegWit are now available (Bitcoin Unlimited, FlexTrans):
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/574g5l/viabtc_why_i_support_bu_we_should_give_the/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u1r2d/bitcoins_specification_eg_excess_blocksize_eb/
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zjnk/the_blockstreamsegwitln_fork_will_be_worth_less/
(3) Very few miners actually support SegWit. In fact, over half of SegWit signaling comes from just two fiat-funded miners associated with Core / Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC:
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
(4) Hard forks are simpler and safer than soft forks. Hard forks preserve your "right to vote" - so Core / Blockstream is afraid of hard forks a/k/a "full node refendums" - because they know their code would be rejected:
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5f4zaa/anything_controversial_is_the_perfect_time_for_a/
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41c8n5/as_core_blockstream_collapses_and_classic_gains/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59hcvblockstream_is_just_another_shitty_startup_a/
(5) Core / Blockstream's latest propaganda "talking point" proclaims that "SegWit is a blocksize increase". But we don't want "a" random, arbitrary centrally planned blocksize increase (to a tiny 1.7MB) - we want _market-based blocksizes - now and into the future:_
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fjh6l/the_bitcoin_community_is_talking_why_isnt/
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/593voi/the_majority_of_the_community_sentiment_be_it/
(6) Core / Blockstream want to radically change Bitcoin to centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize, and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" semantics. The market wants to go to the moon - with Bitcoin's original security model, and Bitcoin's original market-based (miner-decided) blocksize.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57brcb/bitcoin_unlimited_is_the_real_bitcoin_in_line/
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdhzh/the_number_of_blocks_being_mined_by_bitcoin/
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v10zw/i_have_just_been_banned_for_from_rbitcoin_fo
Flipping the Script: It is Core who is proposing a change to Bitcoin, and BU/Classic that is maintaining the status quo.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v36jy/flipping_the_script_it_is_core_who_is_proposing_a/
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/
TL;DR:
You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream?
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Chainsplit: Segwit2x, Replay Protection, and Security Risks Bitcoin Core Dev How to make a Bitcoin Wallet - YouTube Why are you Interested in Bitcoin? Answered by Core dev Luke jr and Bitcoin.com CEO Roger Ver COINDESK BTC WALLET 2017

Wallet Reviews; Menu × ACA News. Bitcoin ... Exchange Reviews; Wallet Reviews; luke-jr Auto Added by WPeMatico. Home » luke-jr. Jan 1 2020. Veriblock Captured Close to 60% of BTC’s OP Return Transactions in 2019 – Bitcoin News. Anchor Data, BCH, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, btc, ... Luke-jr Warns of SegWit2x ‘Distraction’ In a blog post published Saturday, Luke-jr highlights the technical differences SegWit2x represents while warning of its potentially dangerous implications:. Overall, Segwit2x seems to have one real purpose: to try to stall Segwit longer. […] It is a distraction from the upcoming BIP148 softfork, which is already irreversibly deployed to the network. Meanwhile, beyond the realm of fiction, Bitcoin investors may yet see a reversal of fortunes around the time of Luke-jr’s would-be $50,000 activation date of April 1, 2020. As Bitcoinist reported, momentum is building around a theory that the Bitcoin block reward halving, set for May that year, will begin to push up the Bitcoin price a year in advance. Somehow i have a feeling luke-jr is not really innocent... level 1. 3 points · 1 year ago. But Luke works for Blockstream, and Blockstream is evil. /s. level 2. Comment deleted by user 1 year ago. Continue this thread level 1. 4 points · 1 year ago. Samourai is a great wallet. This is very unfortunate and childish of him. level 2. 5 points · 1 year ago. Samourai is a great wallet. no, they ... Bitcoin Dev Luke Jr: Mixing Bitcoins is Money Laundering, and it's Illegal, also Tax Evasion is a Sin. Use of Bitcoin Nor Free Speech is a Right. - gist:5803075

[index] [17668] [12937] [24367] [42151] [42805] [29096] [5642] [49828] [46898] [24842]

Bitcoin Chainsplit: Segwit2x, Replay Protection, and Security Risks

Bitcoin Core Dev "Luke-jr" is asked why he is interested in Bitcoin. This is one of the main people in charge of Bitcoin right now. Interview with Bitcoin Core Developer Luke-Jr (@LukeDashjr) Included in the conversation Gibus, MrHodl, and others. What follows is an informal chat about the upcoming Bitcoin chain split in ... (See Part 2 also.) Luke-jr is one of the main developers for Bitcoin right now. "By the way, the Sun really orbits the Earth, not vice-versa." -luke-jr http:... https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bitcoin-of-america-wallet/id1448496720 Bitcoin wallets are very similar to regular, everyday wallets. Used to carry cash, car... Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dash, Jr. shares the surprising story of how he first learned of Bitcoin. See more at coindesk.com/bitcoin-at-10

#