Coinbase CEO: Core Developers May Be Bitcoin's ‘Biggest ...

Blockchain Bites: Dorsey Challenges Coinbase, Nasdaq Lists Diginex, Ethereum Miners Profit - CoinDesk

Blockchain Bites: Dorsey Challenges Coinbase, Nasdaq Lists Diginex, Ethereum Miners Profit
The Australian government is investing big in modern technology, Nasdaq saw its first crypto exchange operator listing and revenues are surging for Ethereum miners amid increased network activity.
Australia modernizes Australia will commit A$800 million (US$575 million) to invest in digital technologies as part of its coronavirus recovery plan, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced Tuesday. The federal plan will see US$256.6 million for a digital identity solution, $419.9 million to fully implement the Modernising Business Registers (MBR) program, $22.2 million for small businesses training to utilize digital technologies and two blockchain pilot programs totalling $6.9 million. “The Plan supports Australia’s economic recovery by removing out-dated regulatory barriers, boosting the capability of small businesses and backs the uptake of technology across the economy,” Morrison said in the announcement.
Nasdaq launch Blockchain services firm Diginex has become the first crypto exchange operator to list on Nasdaq. The stock went live Thursday morning under the EQOS ticker symbol, a nod to the firm’s EQUOS.io trading platform. CoinDesk’s Nathan DiCamillo reports Diginex’s back-door listing came through a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC). Diginex CEO Richard Byworth said he expects a mix of global retail and institutional investors to buy shares. Over time, he expects the majority of Diginex shareholders to be U.S. investors because of the Nasdaq listing.
Dorsey responds Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted his disapproval of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong’s mission statement to keep his company free and clear of politics. Dorsey argued that by the very act of being a crypto exchange, Coinbase was always already engaged in politics. “Bitcoin (aka ‘crypto’) is direct activism against an unverifiable and exclusionary financial system which negatively affects so much of our society. Important to at least acknowledge and connect the related societal issues your customers face daily. This leaves people behind,” Dorsey tweeted. Armstrong made waves this week – in and out of crypto – when saying Coinbase, and its employees, should keep work and activism separate.
Election predictions Putting stake to their claims, many crypto-political gamblers have cast their vote predicting who might win the contentious U.S. presidential election. CoinDesk markets editor Lawrence Lewitinn looked at the data following this week’s first presidential debate and found many are betting incumbent President Donald Trump will lose in November. While bettors on decentralized betting platforms like Augur and futures markets on FTX aren’t as bullish on the challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, he does have the odds. “Thus what’s true at the time of publication can change on a dime. It is now fewer than five weeks until Election Day. Buckle up!” Lewitinn warns.
Mining profits HIVE Blockchain has reported its best-ever quarter, as the mining firm raked in record fees from the frenzied activity in decentralized finance (DeFi) over the summer. The Toronto-listed mining company released its unaudited results Thursday, saying it mined a total of 32,000 ether (ETH) and 121,000 ethereum classic (ETC) in the second fiscal quarter ending Sept. 30. Per CoinDesk’s price data, that comes to nearly $11.8 million for mining ether, and a further $664,000 for ethereum classic – approximately $12.4 million at time of writing. The figures represent a near 30% increase from the 25,000 ETH that HIVE mined in the first quarter and a 50% increase in the same quarter in 2019.
Stealth launch In the latest effort to smooth a path for buttoned-up investors, Talos, an institutional-grade conduit to the crypto ecosystem, is emerging from stealth mode to serve brokers, custodians, exchanges and over-the-counter (OTC) trading desks. The platform started out in 2018 and is backed by an impressive list of investors including Autonomous Partners, Castle Island Ventures, Coinbase Ventures and Initialized Capital. Over the past year or so, Talos has been quietly onboarding a core group of capital market participants, so that the platform can make its debut in a revenue-generating state.
submitted by SPACguru to SPACs [link] [comments]

Marketing Strategies and Practices for Block chain Projects and Startups.

If you are a blockchain startup, open source project or decentralized protocol and believe that you don’t need the right kind of marketing to succeed, think again.
Marketing” has traditionally been a weakness in the early lives of many tech startups for a variety of reasons. Most startups are often led by young or inexperienced CEOs or project leaders who come from a strong engineering or product mindset. These founders either don’t understand or don’t appreciate the value of marketing, and certainly that comes from a lack of experience or education on the subject. Most blockchain companies/projects founders are no different.
At the root of this situation lies a common and fundamental misconception: not knowing the true meaning and functions of marketing agency in mumbai .

Marketing Mistakes

Wrongfully, marketing is prematurely equated to shouting about a product prior to having it ready for the market to try. Others think that marketing is about hiring a PR firm, polishing a website, publishing a blog post, promoting on social media, designing a great logo with new colors and fonts, or producing videos about your product and Society Activation in Mumbai.
Unfortunately, during the ICO frenzy days, the term marketing has been bastardized around excessive usage of the above named activities. Therefore, marketing has received a bad rap in blockchain circles because it has been equated to pumping bad ICOs where the marketing consisted of purely unchecked promotion.
In the past few months, I have had several conversations with founders of blockchain related projects and companies who clearly didn’t seem to understand, let alone appreciate the value and priority they should be giving to doing a better job at marketing. When I challenged them on their marketing, or broached the topic, the responses ranged along the following flavors:
· We’re not ready for marketing until the next product is released and announced
· We have it in the budget for next year to hire a PR firm
· I’ve been doing videos that will air as advertising later
· We prefer to deliver first, and then talk about what we have done
· Marketing is expensive and we don’t have the budget now
· We hired a design firm and redoing our website with a new visual identity
· We don’t need marketing, we focus on our community on Reddit
All of the above are the wrong answers, and point to not understanding the various parts of marketing.

Marketing is a Process

So let’s start with the basics and further discuss what marketing is, or is not about. First, there are 3 parts to marketing:
· Product marketing – explaining what the product does (features/benefits), and how it is differentiated from others. Goal: Positioning the product.
· Corporate marketing – positioning the company and communicating its messages in a variety of means. Branding and Marketing Communications is a big part of it. Goal: Generate Awareness and Preference.
· Customer marketing (sometimes labelled as field marketing, direct marketing or content marketing) – getting in front of your target market to generate adoption, leads and sales. Goal: Generate Adoption and Loyalty.
The kind of marketing that is often deficient in blockchain companies or projects is Marketing Communications, i.e. how to strongly and clearly message in a few words what your project, company or product do for the usecustomer. But this must be done as a continuum. Messaging is not a single shot of sound bites around a launch event. To make it even more effective, it must be customized to the specific audience you are trying to reach: customers, investors, employees, media, influencers, partners, etc.
The process of creating the messaging is a complex exercise that has several layers designed to answering the WHY, WHAT and HOW of your value proposition. Many companies nail the WHY (Elevator pitch), but don’t follow through with the WHAT (Competitive positioning and Core value proposition), or the HOW (Product/Solution messaging and Technology differentiation).
Marketing is a process that evolves along a series of objectives, from Awareness, to Consideration, to Trials, and then Loyalty. Different tools are effective for each one of these steps. For example, thought leadership focuses on the awareness aspect and trying to shape the market by educating it. The brand leadership helps to influence the prospect’s perception towards you. You want to gradually progress from letting your target market care, understand, believe, then act to try your product and merchant onboarding agency in mumbai .
Here is the right order of progression for the following activities:
  1. Brand Strategy
  2. Positioning Statement
  3. Messaging Elements
  4. Visual Identity
Sadly, a common mistake I see is starting with the visual identity and thinking that it is branding. Often, that is the result of being led by an inexperienced CMO or one that came from the PCommunications side, or when the organization has hired a brand design firm instead of a brand strategy firm. Most brand design houses (and some PR companies) will tell you they will take care of your messaging and branding, but that is the tail wagging the dog. Brand strategy takes a very unique skill, and there are few brand strategy experts that do a great job with it. One brand strategy firm with whom I have had experience working with, is Brandsinger.
In a nutshell, if you are not occupying a position in the minds of users/customers (and the prospective market), then your brand value is zero. Someone else will come and articulate their value proposition better than you, and will subsequently occupy that position. If you are first to deliver a product, it may not matter. You need to be first in occupying that specific position in the minds of your target market. The battle is a battle of the minds, as rightfully spelled out in the seminal book on that topic Positioning: The Battle For Your Mind, a classic book that I have perhaps read over 20 times (over a course of 25 years), and almost memorized and put into practice accordingly. The sequel to that book, – Marketing Warfare, is also a must read marketing classic from the legendary Ries and Trout, the two authors of that series of work.

Blockchain Examples

Let’s give it some blockchain and cryptocurrency flavours.
Bitcoin occupied first the digital money position and still does to this point. Ethereum exploited a weakness in Bitcoin,- its ease of programmability and development platform potential, and it currently owns that position. All other (newer) blockchains have to attack Bitcoin or Ethereum as the reference points. Most of them have to raise the volume and intensity of their marketing in order to make an assault on these established leaders. It is always more expensive to attack than it is to defend a position.
ZCash and Monero have exploited the privacy niche. Coinbase occupies the safety ladder in cryptocurrency exchanges. Binance is trying to attack it with a me-too strategy focused on scale, and they are extending their brand with new services. LoomX has been good at becoming a Layer 2 leader for Ethereum. Take any other segment. For example, when you think file storage, you probably think Storj or Filecoin because that’s the position they are occupying. When you think prediction markets, you probably think of Augur or Gnosis. And when you think of stablecoins, Maker comes to mind.

Back to Basics

For those of you who know me from the blockchain market only (over the past 6 years roughly), you may not know that I’ve previously spent a long career in sales and marketing with a variety of positions and experiences in direct sales, field marketing, corporate marketing and several startups as founder and default chief marketer. More specifically, since I exited the operational world via my last startup in April 2013, I’ve written extensively about startup marketing in the early years of this blog. All of it still applies, as I focused on explaining the basics of market positioning, marketing strategy, messaging, brand strategy, and related marketing topics.
There is no point re-inventing marketing for the blockchain sector. So, I’m going to link to some basics that I’ve already written about. Here, I collected the 12 most pertinent blog posts into a single one that links to them: Startup Marketing Compendium of 12 Posts on Positioning, Branding, Messaging and more. Then I wrote one more, The Biggest Blind Spot of a Startup CEO is Ignoring Their Brand.
So please go read that series, and if you need help implementing some of that, don’t start by hiring a PR agency. Rather, take an introspective view, and hire the right marketing person first.
Another common weakness with blockchain companies is they fail to tell their stories in non-technical terms to the market. It is not enough to excite the developers.
And don’t just focus entirely on social media publishing. Unless you have 1 Million+ Twitter followers in your target audience, promoting on social media will only make a dent in your awareness goals.
Remember, marketing is not just writing a press release. It is not shouting from the rooftops. It takes finesse, planning, thought, accuracy, targeted actions, and iterations to get it right.
And timing is so important. Sometimes the marketing is way ahead of delivery, and sometimes it is way behind it, but when the timing and sequence are right, that’s when the magic of results happens.
Allow me repeat this: marketing is a process. Learn it, acquire experience in it, practice it, but don’t be amateurish about it.
About Us.
We are a local marketing and sales agency that help small/medium sized businesses and Start up. Established for over 10 years, our clients vary in size and cover a wide variety of business sectors. we see ourselves as active members of the local community helping local businesses by providing a variety of field marketing, btl marketing , door to door marketing, brand promotion, social media marketing, telemarketing, web and printed based marketing materials.
Contact Us.
Get in touch with us, we would love to discuss your marketing needs.
We love a good coffee and a challenge, so would be happy to meet up with you face to face.
submitted by parth770 to u/parth770 [link] [comments]

Opportunity for exposure to an influential audience

New York State Department of Financial Services (the people who wrote the "BitLicense") is looking for public comment on how they should regulate exchanges listing new virtual currencies. Their official post can be found here: https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/virtual_currency_businesses/pr_guidance_regarding_listing_of_vc.
Any reputable exchange that wants to service New York customers will follow their rules (Coinbase, Gemini, etc.). New York DFS is looking to create a two pronged framework for exchanges to follow when listing new coins. Namely, they can offer any of the coins on a predetermined list, or they can self certify / petition DFS to approve a token (I believe exchanges must currently gain approval for each new token). Our opportunity comes with the predetermined list.
The BitLicense is generally thought of as a highly onerous and strict piece of regulation. So much so that Kraken pulled out of New York rather than apply for one of these (see here: https://www.coindesk.com/bitlicense-refugees-kraken-shapeshift-ceos-talk-escape-new-york ). If the ability to list NANO was baked into the BitLicense, it would A) make it easier for major exchanges servicing New York customers to list it and B) make every exchange take a hard look at why NANO was chosen to be included on an ultra conservative list (at the moment they are contemplating: Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ether, Ether Classic, Litecoin, Ripple, Paxos Standard, and Gemini Dollar).
Usually to get an exchange's attention it requires a core team member from the project to reach out. In this case New York DFS is seeking comments from "all interested parties and the general public." Let's show them the power of our community by sending well thought out reasons as to why NANO should be available to list for all BitLicense holders! Comments should be submitted by January 27, 2020 to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]). They request using “Proposed Coin Listing Policy Framework” in the subject line.

TLDR: Let New York DFS know why all BitLicense holders should be able to list NANO by sending an email to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) by 1/27/2020 using “Proposed Coin Listing Policy Framework” in the subject line.
submitted by ovz6 to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

BTC is centralized and filled with misinformation/censorships and controlled by a single entity. However, their propaganda has worked wonders and made many people think the opposite. The fact is, Bitcoin Cash is magnitudes more decentralized...

Credits To thepaip and singularity87
TLDR: BTC is centralized and filled with misinformation/censorships and controlled by a single entity. However, their propaganda has worked wonders and made many people think the opposite. The fact is, Bitcoin Cash is magnitudes more decentralized in terms of miners, multiple independent development/research teams, etc. There are 3 things that cannot be hidden for long; the sun, the moon, and the truth. Educate yourself and spread the truth. This is the only way to make a stand against misinformation and censorships.
People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
Source: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/
Sources:
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/633119949943275520
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hb63g/bip_suggestion_lock_the_blockchain_to_only/cu5v2u2/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uu3we/bitstamp_will_switch_to_bip_101_this_decembe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uu3we/bitstamp_will_switch_to_bip_101_this_decembecxi370c/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3rejl9/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_bip_101_is_the_best/cwpglh6
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3axnc3/this_is_the_definition_of_fud_how_to_subvert/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/
http://pastebin.com/1kvuj5bw
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/418r0l/lukejr_is_already_trying_to_sabotage_bitcoin/
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.cjuafsypy
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3axnc3/this_is_the_definition_of_fud_how_to_subvert/
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.g42rjs2ew
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-classic-targeted-by-ddos-attacks/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h2wiv/was_theymos_running_a_botnet_in_2007_theymos/?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fm11b/unullc_is_actively_trying_to_delete_satoshi_from/?
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/180#discussion_r91823463
submitted by MobTwo to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20190919(Market index 31 — Fear state)

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20190919(Market index 31 — Fear state)

https://preview.redd.it/ohzr58jf3kn31.png?width=432&format=png&auto=webp&s=7243012b0c5417a9ed5ecab1f85e44d93ddb564f

Bank Of America Joins Marco Polo Blockchain Trade Network Bank of America has joined Marco Polo, a consortium working to bring efficiencies to international trade using blockchain technology. Founded by startups R3 and TradeIX, Marco Polo is built on R3’s Corda blockchain platform. The network aims to deliver real-time connectivity, greater visibility for trading relationships and lower barriers to accessing capital.
China State Council: Promoting Integration Of New Technologies Like Blockchain Tech With Transportation Industry According to Xinhua News Agency, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council recently issued an outline for transportation construction in China. In terms of smart transportation innovation, the outline proposes to promote the deep integration of new technologies such as big data, Internet, artificial intelligence, and blockchain with the transportation industry.
Arab Bank Switzerland Opens Bitcoin Custody, Brokerage Services Arab Bank Switzerland has partnered with blockchain technology firm Taurus to offer Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) custody and brokerage services to its clients. Serge Robin, the CEO of Arab Bank Switzerland — a Swiss institution that forms part of the Jordan-headquartered Arab Bank group — said: “We firmly believe that blockchain will disrupt the financial industry as we know it and we intend to be amongst the.
The Turkish Government Has Announced Plans To Establish A National Blockchain Infrastructure According to a Cointelegraph report, the Turkish government has announced plans to establish a national blockchain infrastructure to utilize distributed ledger technology (DLT) in public administration, according to the Strategy 2023 presentation provided by The Ministry of Industry and Technology on Sept. 18 in Ankara. Strategy 2023 emphasizes blockchain and DLT as priorities for the coming year. The document refers to a Startup Genome survey that marks blockchain as one of the fastest-growing tech trends, with a 101.5% increase in early-stage startup funding globally.

Encrypted project calendar(September 19, 2019)

NRG/Energi: Energi (NRG) Energi will launch a trading competition on the KuCoin platform on September 9th. By September 19th, 800 NRG will be presented to the top 470 participants. ADA/Cardano: The Cardano (ADA) project official will host the Wyoming hackathon from September 19th to 22nd. KIN/Kin: The Kin (KIN) project team will host a community gathering in Toronto on September 19. BTC/Bitcoin: The 2019 Open Core Summit will be held in San Francisco from September 19th to 20th. BSV/Bitcoin SV: The Bitcoin SV (BSV) BSV Eco Conference will be held in Hangzhou, China on September 19th. OKEX will jointly host the event as a strategic partner of BSV. NPX/NaPoleonX: NaPoleonX (NPX) Binance DEX will be online NPX at 9:30 am (UTC) on September 19. VIDY: On-line IDAX exchange and opening the GOB/BTC trading market

Encrypted project calendar(September 20, 2019)

NULS / NULS: The NULS 2.0 Beta hackathon will be held from September 20th to September 21st, 2019. AE/Aeternity: Aeternity (AE) will hold “Cosmos One” conference in Prague, Czech Republic on September 20th COCOS/COCOS: The Cocos-BCX (COCOS) Oasis Arena hackathon will take place from September 20th to 22nd in Shanghai, China (“GO Shanghai”). RVN/Ravencoin: The Ravencoin (RVN) Ravencoin project team will host the “Ravencoin Asia 2019” party in Seoul, South Korea on September 20. GOB: Go online on the IDAX exchange and open the GOB/BTC trading market

Encrypted project calendar(September 21, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 6th FINWISE Global Summit Macau will be held from September 21st to 22nd. Distributed Financial Technology (DeFi) is the main topic of this conference. OKB/OKB: OKB (OKB) OKEx The Africa Cryptour series of talks in Kenya will take place on September 21 in Nairobi. ADA/Cardano: Cardano (ADA) Cardano Ambassador Marin Kramaric will host the Ada community gathering in Croatia on September 21. ZIL/Zilliqa: The Zilliqa (ZIL) Zilliqa project representative will attend the “Bitcoin and Blockchain Future” conference in London, UK on September 21st.

Encrypted project calendar(September 22, 2019)

NPXS/Pundi X: Pundi X (NPXS) PundiX Labs will officially launch the XPOS transaction at the “AkiColle” event in Tokyo on September 22.

Encrypted project calendar(September 23, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: Bakkt, the digital asset platform led by ICE, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange and the world’s second largest trading group, will launch a bitcoin physical delivery futures contract on September 23. EOS/EOS: EOS main network is expected to upgrade version 1.8 on September 23 DCDecred: Project leader Jake Yocom-Piatt of Decred (DCR) Decrex will attend the Encryption Community Party in San Francisco on September 23 and will deliver a speech.

Encrypted project calendar(September 24, 2019)

ENG/Enigma: Enigma (ENG) ENG main network token snapshot will end on September 24, the original start time is August 26. LINA (LINA): Lina Review will host the Lina network launch event in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam on September 24th and release a 10-year operational strategy. Cappasity (CAPP): Cappasity will showcase its digital signage solutions in luxury stores at the Paris Retail Week from September 24th to 26th.

Encrypted project calendar(September 25, 2019)

MIOTA/IOTA: IOTA (MIOTA) IOTA will host a community event on September 25th at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles on the theme of “Building Your Own IoT.” Quant (QNT): The Quant project will participate in a marketing conference in London from September 25th to 26th, which will focus on data technology.

Encrypted project calendar(September 26, 2019)

ADA/Cardano: The Cardano (ADA) Cardano community will host a party in Washington, DC on September 26.

Encrypted project calendar(September 27, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: Cripto Latin Fest will be held in Cordoba, Argentina from September 27th to 29th. Switcheo (SWTH): After a one-year token exchange process, the project team will officially end the SWH→SWTH token exchange process on September 27.

Encrypted project calendar(September 28, 2019)

ADA/Cardano: Cardano (ADA) Cardano (ADA) 2nd Anniversary, Cardinal Foundation, IOHK and EMURGO main members will participate in community celebrations in Plovdiv, Bulgaria on September 28. TOP Network (TOP): The TOP Network team will hold a hackathon in Prague, Czech Republic from September 28th to 29th. Horizen (ZEN): Horizen project BD Rep Vano Narimandize will discuss the current status and development of sidechain technology at the Industry 4.0 Blockchain Summit on September 28.

Encrypted project calendar(September 29, 2019)

GAME/GameCredits: GameCredits (GAME) is expected to perform hard forks on September 29th at block height 2519999

Encrypted project calendar(September 30, 2019)

INS/Insolar: Insolar (INS) will be on September 30th ERD/Elrond: Elrond (ERD) will conduct main network test on September 30th NULS/NULS: The NULS team will plan to beta the ChainBOX in the third quarter. CS/Credits: Credits (CS) will exchange tokens and bug rewards in the third quarter QTUM/Qtum: Quantum Chain (QTUM) is expected to complete lightning network beta in the third quarter XEM/NEM: New World Bank (XEM) will release mobile wallet and computer wallet in the third quarter HC/HyperCash: hypercash (HC) will complete community management agreement in the third quarter

Encrypted project calendar(October 01, 2019)

HT/Huobi Token: The financial base public link jointly created by Firecoin and Nervos is expected to be open source in October. RVN/Ravencoin: Ravencoin (RVN) Ravencoin will perform a hard fork on October 1. ADA/Cardano: Cardano (ADA) plans to hold technical consensus meeting in Amsterdam on October 1st XRC/Bitcoin Rhodium: Bitcoin Rhodium (XRC) will record account balance awards on October 1st PPC/Peercoin: Peercoin (PPC) will perform Peercoin v0.8 (code tang lang) hard fork on October 1st

Encrypted project calendar(October 02, 2019)

BNB/Binance Coin: The 2019 DELTA Summit will be held in Malta from October 2nd to 4th. The DELTA Summit is Malta’s official blockchain and digital innovation campaign. CAPP/Cappasity: The Cappasity (CAPP) London Science and Technology Festival will be held from October 2nd to 3rd, when the Cappasity project will be attended by the Science and Technology Festival.

Encrypted project calendar(October 03, 2019)

ETC/Ethereum Classic: The 2019 Ether Classic (ETC) Summit will be held in Vancouver on October 3–4
https://preview.redd.it/g5wngyjl3kn31.png?width=504&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2705252022914e72dd2dbc2aa641243bb185533
Bitcoin slipped below $10,000 on Thursday after the Federal Reserve cut benchmark lending rates by 25 basis points.
The BTC/USD instrument settled a new session low towards $9,585.86 on San Francisco-based Coinbase exchange. That brought the pair’s week-to-date losses close to 7 percent.
The move downhill occurred despite the presence of so-called bullish catalysts, mainly the recent drone attacks on Saudi Arabia oil production facilities that choked the world’s oil supply by 5 percent. The latest rate cut announcement and its immediate impact on bitcoin are reminiscent of how investors are not treating the cryptocurrency bitcoin as a safe-haven asset in the times of macroeconomic and geopolitical crisis.
Bulls, nevertheless, see bitcoin at new highs in the coming times. According to Arthur Hayes, the CEO & co-founder of controversial crypto-derivatives exchange BitMEX, bitcoin would surge to $20,000 after taking cues from the Fed’s dovish sentiment.
Review previous articles: https://medium.com/@to.liuwen

Telegram: https://t.me/Lay126
Twitter:https://twitter.com/mianhuai8
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022246432745
Reddi:https://www.reddit.com/useliuidaxmn
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/liu-wei-294a12176/
submitted by liuidaxmn to u/liuidaxmn [link] [comments]

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20190912(Market index 39 — Fear state)

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20190912(Market index 39 — Fear state)

https://preview.redd.it/eyv7td4sp5m31.png?width=486&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6c661701f4153576bf02987a3bebca67ef027ec

BTC’s block rate keeps high, and the volume of mainstream exchanges continues to shrink. According to TokenGazer data analysis, as of 17:00 on September 12, BTC price is $10,149.17, market value is $179,338.55M; mainstream exchange 24H BTC transaction volume is about $557.89M, which continues to shrink; BTC active address number, chain transaction volume There is a certain decline, the market value has a certain rebound, currently about 69.98%; BTC release time is about 8.2min, maintaining a higher rate of block; BTC 30-day ROI continues to decline; futures, the bitcoin contract position of the fire coin The amount fluctuated slightly, basically the same as yesterday. OKEx’s long and short positions decreased, but historically it was still at a high level. As the bitcoin price fell, the spread between the bitcoin quarter contract and the spot fell from more than 100 US dollars to 80. US dollar; on the exchange side, the intraday BTC/USD Coinbase is in a premium state for BTC/USD Bitfinex. In the evening, there will be an interest rate decision by the European Central Bank and a speech by President Draghi. If the easing measures exceed expectations, it will help the rise of safe-haven assets.
French Finance Minister Lemaire: has discussed with the ECB President the possibility of studying public digital currency French Finance Minister Lemaire: Already discussed with European Central Bank President Draghi and Lagarde the possibility of studying public digital currencies.
The Venezuelan Bank has supported users to open virtual currency wallets and now only supports petroleum coins. The opening of the virtual currency wallet interface has appeared on the customer account interface of the Venezuelan bank, the largest bank in Venezuela. The bank’s customers will be able to trade “Petro” on the authorized trading platforms Amberies, Bancar, Criptolag through a virtual currency account, and the price of 1 Petro is about $60. Although only Petro is currently supported, there is a drop-down menu for selecting “virtual currency”, so it is not excluded that it will support other currencies in the future.

Encrypted project calendar(September 12, 2019)

BNB/Binance Coin: Coin Security will stop providing services to US users on Binance.com on September 12th BCN/Bytecoin: Bytecoin (BCN) will release Copper v3.6.0 on September 12t HBT/Hubii Network: Hubii Network (HBT) hubii’s “Blockchain in Practice” campaign with Microsoft will be held on September 12th at the Microsoft office in Oslo. ETC/Ethereum Classic: ETC or will perform Atlantis hard fork on September 12th

Encrypted project calendar(September 13, 2019)

VET/Vechain: VeChain (VET) VeChain CEO Sunny Lu will deliver a speech at the Public Blockchain Symposium on September 13th. WABI/Tael: The Tael (WABI) project team will release the new Tael website on September 13.

Encrypted project calendar(September 14, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The European Union will launch its name, Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2), which will take effect on September 14. The new law includes banks implementing “strong customer certification”. In addition, according to previous news, PSD2 can obtain some of the functions of the banking industry, providing new payment solutions for encryption products. BNB/Binance Coin: Binance Coin (BNB) Coin’s overseas team will hold its first community gathering in Jakarta, Indonesia on September 14. OKB/OKB: OKB (OKB) OKEx Africa will hold a party in Accra, Ghana, on September 14th, and the first African blockchain project supported by OKEx will be released.

Encrypted project calendar(September 15, 2019)

TRX/TRON: Wave field TRON launches side chain plan Sun Network network three-phase release WAN/Wanchain: Wanchain (WAN) will hold a 3Q community conference call in mid-September AE/Aeternity: Aeternity (AE) æternity is expected to carry out the Lima hard fork upgrade on September 15th, and the third Ethernet AE token migration hard fork will take effect. NANO/Nano: Nano (NANO) NANO founder Colin LeMahieu will attend an informal community gathering in Austin, Texas on September 15th.

Encrypted project calendar(September 16, 2019)

LINK/ChainLink: Chainlink (LINK) Oracle will host the Oracle Code One conference from September 16th to September 19th, at which it will announce the launch of 50 startups with Chainlink. MANA/Decentraland: The Decentraland (MANA) community will host the SDK hackathon on September 16. WABI/Tael: Tael (WABI) “Tael Insider” campaign will be held on the new project website on September 16.

Encrypted project calendar(September 17, 2019)

ZEN/Horizen: The official team of Horizen (ZEN) will hold a community gathering in Strasbourg, France on September 17th.

Encrypted project calendar(September 18, 2019)

OKB/OKB: OKB (OKB) On September 18th, OKEx will hold an institutional meeting in London to share the regulatory environment issues facing encryption organizations.

Encrypted project calendar(September 19, 2019)

NRG/Energi: Energi (NRG) Energi will launch a trading competition on the KuCoin platform on September 9th. By September 19th, 800 NRG will be presented to the top 470 participants. ADA/Cardano: The Cardano (ADA) project official will host the Wyoming hackathon from September 19th to 22nd. KIN/Kin: The Kin (KIN) project team will host a community gathering in Toronto on September 19. BTC/Bitcoin: The 2019 Open Core Summit will be held in San Francisco from September 19th to 20th.

Encrypted project calendar(September 20, 2019)

NULS / NULS: The NULS 2.0 Beta hackathon will be held from September 20th to September 21st, 2019. AE/Aeternity: Aeternity (AE) will hold “Cosmos One” conference in Prague, Czech Republic on September 20th

Encrypted project calendar(September 21, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 6th FINWISE Global Summit Macau will be held from September 21st to 22nd. Distributed Financial Technology (DeFi) is the main topic of this conference. OKB/OKB: OKB (OKB) OKEx The Africa Cryptour series of talks in Kenya will take place on September 21 in Nairobi.

Encrypted project calendar(September 23, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: Bakkt, the digital asset platform led by ICE, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange and the world’s second largest trading group, will launch a bitcoin physical delivery futures contract on September 23. EOS/EOS: EOS main network is expected to upgrade version 1.8 on September 23

Encrypted project calendar(September 24, 2019)

ENG/Enigma: Enigma (ENG) ENG main network token snapshot will end on September 24, the original start time is August 26.

Encrypted project calendar(September 26, 2019)

ADA/Cardano: The Cardano (ADA) Cardano community will host a party in Washington, DC on September 26.

BTC briefly fell below the $10,000 mark yesterday to date, then rebounded quickly and is now back near $10,200. In the past 24 hours, the net outflow of BTC funds is close to $450 million, and the outflow of funds has decreased compared with the previous cycle. The BTC continued to withdraw at night yesterday and was quickly pulled up after breaking the $10,000 barrier. The air force remained weak, with strong overall support underneath. Yesterday, the day line closed a long shadow line, the day is expected to oscillate upward, the medium-term trend continues to lean towards bulls, but BC has not given a clear direction, the trading needs to pay attention to risk. In terms of operation, the spot can be held continuously, the strategy of replenishing warehouse at a low level should be maintained, and the risk should be avoided.
Review previous articles: https://medium.com/@to.liuwen

Telegram: https://t.me/Lay126
Twitter:https://twitter.com/mianhuai8
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022246432745
Reddi:https://www.reddit.com/useliuidaxmn
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/liu-wei-294a12176/
submitted by liuidaxmn to u/liuidaxmn [link] [comments]

BTC is centralized and filled with misinformation/censorships and controlled by a single entity. However, their propaganda has worked wonders and made many people think the opposite. The fact is, Bitcoin Cash is magnitudes more decentralized...

Credits To thepaip and singularity87
TLDR: BTC is centralized and filled with misinformation/censorships and controlled by a single entity. However, their propaganda has worked wonders and made many people think the opposite. The fact is, Bitcoin Cash is magnitudes more decentralized in terms of miners, multiple independent development/research teams, etc. There are 3 things that cannot be hidden for long; the sun, the moon, and the truth. Educate yourself and spread the truth. This is the only way to make a stand against misinformation and censorships.
People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
Source: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/
Sources:
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/633119949943275520
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hb63g/bip_suggestion_lock_the_blockchain_to_only/cu5v2u2/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uu3we/bitstamp_will_switch_to_bip_101_this_decembe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uu3we/bitstamp_will_switch_to_bip_101_this_decembecxi370c/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3rejl9/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_bip_101_is_the_best/cwpglh6
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3axnc3/this_is_the_definition_of_fud_how_to_subvert/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/
http://pastebin.com/1kvuj5bw
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/418r0l/lukejr_is_already_trying_to_sabotage_bitcoin/
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.cjuafsypy
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3axnc3/this_is_the_definition_of_fud_how_to_subvert/
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.g42rjs2ew
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-classic-targeted-by-ddos-attacks/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h2wiv/was_theymos_running_a_botnet_in_2007_theymos/?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fm11b/unullc_is_actively_trying_to_delete_satoshi_from/?
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/180#discussion_r91823463
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

Core/Blockstream attacks any dev who knows how to do simple & safe "Satoshi-style" on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, like Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. Now we're left with idiots like Greg Maxwell, Adam Back and Luke-Jr - who don't really understand scaling, mining, Bitcoin, or capacity planning.

Before Core and AXA-owned Blockstream started trying to monopolize and hijack Bitcoin development, Bitcoin had some intelligent devs.
Remember Mike Hearn?
Mike Hearn was a professional capacity planner for one of the world's busiest websites: Google Maps / Earth.
TIL On chain scaling advocate Mike Hearn was a professional capacity planner for one of the world’s busiest websites.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6aylng/til_on_chain_scaling_advocate_mike_hearn_was_a/
Mike Hearn also invented a decentralized Bitcoin-based crowdfunding app, named Lighthouse.
Lighthouse: A development retrospective - Mike Hearn - Zürich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4iZKISMZS8
Mike Hearn also developed BitcoinJ - a Java-based Bitcoin wallet still used on many Android devices.
Mike Hearn: bitcoinj 0.12 released
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2i6t6h/mike_hearn_bitcoinj_012_released/
So of course, Core / Blockstream had to relentlessly slander and attack Mike Hearn - until he left Bitcoin.
Thank you, Mike Hearn
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40v0dx/thank_you_mike_hearn/
Remember Gavin Andresen?
Satoshi originally gave control of the Bitcoin project to Gavin. (Later Gavin naïvely gave control of the repo to the an idiot dev named Wladimir van der Laan, who is now "Lead Maintainer for Bitcoin Core".)
Gavin provided a simple & safe scaling roadmap for Bitcoin, based on Satoshi's original vision.
21 months ago, Gavin Andresen published "A Scalability Roadmap", including sections called: "Increasing transaction volume", "Bigger Block Road Map", and "The Future Looks Bright". This was the Bitcoin we signed up for. It's time for us to take Bitcoin back from the strangle-hold of Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43lxgn/21_months_ago_gavin_andresen_published_a/
Gavin Andresen: "Let's eliminate the limit. Nothing bad will happen if we do, and if I'm wrong the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity." (June 2016)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6delid/gavin_andresen_lets_eliminate_the_limit_nothing/
Gavin's scaling roadmap for Bitcoin is in line with Satoshi's roadmap:
Satoshi's original scaling plan to ~700MB blocks, where most users just have SPV wallets, does NOT require fraud proofs to be secure (contrary to Core dogma)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6di2mf/satoshis_original_scaling_plan_to_700mb_blocks/
So of course, Core / Blockstream had to relentlessly slander and attack Gavin Andresen - until he basically left Bitcoin.
Gavin, Thanks and ... 'Stay the course'.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45sv55/gavin_thanks_and_stay_the_course/
In fact, Core and AXA-funded Blockstream devs and trolls have relentlessly attacked and slandered all talented devs who know how to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling for Bitcoin:
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5omufj/notice_how_anyone_who_has_even_remotely_supported/).
So who are the "leaders" of Bitcoin development now?
Basically we've been left with three toxic and insane wannabe "leaders": Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back.
Here's the kind of nonsense that /nullc - Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell has been saying lately:
Here's the kind of nonsense that the authoritarian nut-job u/luke-jr Luke-Jr has been saying lately:
Meanwhile, Adam Back u/adam3us, CEO of the AXA-owned Blockstream, is adamantly against Bitcoin upgrading and scaling on-chain via any simple and safe hard forks, because a hard fork, while safer for Bitcoin, might remove Blockstream from power.
In addition to blatantly (and egotistically) misdefining Bitcoin on his Twitter profile as "Bitcoin is Hashcash extended with inflation control", Adam Back has never understood how Bitcoin works.
4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47fr3p/4_weird_facts_about_adam_back_1_he_neve
The alarming graph below shows where Bitcoin is today, after several years of "leadership" by idiots like Greg Maxwell, Luke Jr, and Adam Back:
Purely coincidental...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Why does it seem so hard to "scale" Bitcoin?
Because we've been following toxic insane "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr, and Adam Back.
Here are two old posts - from over a year ago - when everyone already had their hair on fire about the urgency of increaing the blocksize.
Meanwhile the clueless "leaders" from Core - Greg Maxwell and Luke-Jr - ignored everyone because they're are apparently too stupid to read a simple graph:
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
Look at these graphs, and you will see that Luke-Jr is lying when he says: "At the current rate of growth, we will not hit 1 MB for 4 more years."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47jwxu/look_at_these_graphs_and_you_will_see_that_lukej
What's the roadmap from Greg Maxwell, Adam Back, and Luke-Jr?
They've failed to get users and miners to adopt their dangerous SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - so now they're becoming even more desperate and reckless, advocating a suicidal "user (ie, non-miner) activated soft fork, or "UASF".
Miner-activated soft forks were already bad enough - because they take away your right to vote.
"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/
But a user-activated soft fork is simply suicidal (for the users who try to adopt it - but fortunately not for everyone else).
"The 'logic' of a 'UASF' is that if a minority throw themselves off a cliff, the majority will follow behind and hand them a parachute before they hit the ground. Plus, I'm not even sure SegWit on a minority chain makes any sense given the Anyone-Can-Spend hack that was used." ~ u/Capt_Roger_Murdock
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6dr9tc/the_logic_of_a_uasf_is_that_if_a_minority_throw/
Is there a better way forward?
Yes there is.
There is no need to people to listen to toxic insane "leaders" like:
  • Greg Maxwell u/nullc - CTO of Blockstream
  • Luke-Jr u/luke-jr - authoritarian nutjob
  • Adam Back u/adam3us - CEO of Blockstream
They have been immensely damaging to Bitcoin with their repeated denials of reality and their total misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works.
Insane toxic "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back keep spreading nonsense and lies which are harmful to the needs of Bitcoin users and miners.
What can we do now?
Code that supports bigger blocks (Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic, Extension Blocks, 8 MB blocksize) is already being used by 40-50% of hashpower on the network.
https://coin.dance/blocks
http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
Code that supports bigger blocks:
Scaling Bitcoin is only complicated or dangerous if you listen to insane toxic "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back.
Scaling Bitcoin is safe and simple if you just ignore the bizarre proposals like SegWit and now UASF being pushed by those insane toxic "leaders".
We can simply install software like Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic - or any client supporting bigger blocks, such as Extension Blocks or 8 MB blocksize - and move forward to simple & safe on-chain scaling for Bitcoin - and we could easily enjoy a scenario such as the following:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

u/Tempatroy: "u/adam3us, u/nullc, u/luke-jr don't even understand the basic premise of Bitcoin." ... u/nullc: "You have been around for thirteen hours and you think you understand Bitcoin better than people who have been maintaining it for the last six years" ... PLUS: a lengthy response from me :)

https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68hkk5/former_core_fanboy_admits_95_of_core_loyalists/dgyp1ok/
I mean if you base your understanding of what Bitcoin is based on the whitepaper or even Satoshi’s talk, people heavily associated with Blockstream (like adam3us, nullc, luke-jr et al.) don’t even understand the basic premise of Bitcoin.
~ u/Tempatroy
Welcome to Reddit, Tempatroy.
Thank you for pinging me to your insult.
I’m always interested in hearing when someone who has been around for thirteen hours (and, in fact, needed to be manually whitelisted to get past the 24 hours automod rule in rbtc) thinks that they understand the premise of Bitcoin better than people who have been maintaining it for the last six years, participated in it before the overwhelming majority of people here, or who worked on cryptocurrency for a decade even before Bitcoin.
~ u/nullc
Here is my response to u/nullc:
TL;DR:
Bitcoin cannot be decentralized and permissionless and trustless if we use some political / social process to decide on “the rules”.
The only way that Bitcoin can be decentralized and permissionless and trustless is if we use Proof-of-Work to decide on “the rules”.
This implies that “the rules” of Bitcoin cannot be be defined using some political / social process before a block is appended several-confirmations-deep into the chain.
In the system invented by Satoshi, “the rules” can only be defined using Proof-of-Work. This requires observing which chain has the most Proof-of-work after a block has been appended several-confirmations-deep into the chain.
Yes this seems upside-down to people who are accustomed to rules being “handed down” by some authority (Satoshi, Greg, Blockstream, etc.).
But - if we want Bitcoin to remain decentralized and permissionless and trustless - then we must recognize that:
  • The chain with the most Proof-of-Work is the “valid” chain - ie, the chain with the most Proof-of-Work defines “the rules” after the fact; and
  • There is no concept in Bitcoin of some pre-existing “rules” defining the valid chain.
To put it even more bluntly:

”The rules” are not defined “before the fact” by Greg, or by Blockstream.

”The rules” are defined “after the fact” by observing the chain (not the “valid chain” - simply the “chain”) that has ended up having the most Proof-of-Work.

Details
As others have pointed out to u/nullc: u/Tempatroy wasn’t being insulting - he was merely making a factual observation - pointing out that:
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc does not understand (or perhaps is merely pretending not to understand) the must fundamental aspect of Bitcoin.
I will describe this problem at length below.
I apologize in advance for the convolutedness of this exposition - this is only a first draft off the top of my head now.
Other people have explained this better - and hopefully I will also someday manage to put together a more succinct exposition of my own.
This major “blind spot” of Greg’s has already been commented on at length, eg:
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg’s comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought “honest” meant “plays by Core rules.” [But] there is no “honesty” involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zxl2l/mining_is_how_you_vote_for_rule_changes_gregs/
It’s a subtle point.
It involves two approaches to defining Bitcoin’s “rules”:
  • a naive, incorrect approach used throughout most of human history - called ‘Approach (1)’ below, versus
  • the correct approach developed by Satoshi - called ‘Approach (2)’ below

‘Approach (1)’ - The “naive” (incorrect, pre-Satoshi) approach
This is the approach adopted by Greg Maxwell u/nullc, and many of the people who follow him - eg Adam Back u/adam3us CEO of Blockstream, and Luke-Jr u/luke-jr (who also thinks he can decide which transactions are “spam” and which are not - ie, he is authoritarian, the antithesis of Bitcoin) - and by the “low-information” people on the censored forum r\bitcoin.
I know it sounds like I am being rude here - but the situation is dire, after so many years of censorship, and with Bitcoin’s market cap dropping to 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap for the first time (despite the moderate price rise which actually makes people overlook this drop in market cap), and in view of the hope and promise of Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi - enabling a more rational and sustainable system for capital allocation.
Sidebar on Bitcoin’s “killer app”:
I think that “rational and sustainable allocation of capital” is the most important “killer app” of Bitcoin - not coffee, not remittances, not even as a store-of-value or a speculative asset class - although those are all nice things.
I would argue that “rational and sustainable allocation of capital” is the main thing which “fantasy fiat” has not been doing - causing the various social and economic and ecological crises which may destroy civilization on our planet in a few decades.
The main hope offered by Bitcoin is that, by preventing central bankers from “ninja-mining” their “fantasy fiat” and handing it out to their buddies to invest in non-rational, non-sustainable projects, Bitcoin could help people make decisions for allocating capital which actually increase our well-being, instead of increasing our suffering.
People like Greg and his followers (naively, incorrectly) believe (or pretend to believe) that the “rules” (specifically: the “rules” governing which block to append next) are somehow “pre-defined” and are somehow (already) manifested / incorporated / coded in “the software” - and that the miners must “honestly” obey these pre-defined rules.
On the surface (and to people who are used to obeying “rules” handed down from some authority: eg from a government, a religion, a dev team, etc.), this may have a certain appeal - but it is not how Satoshi actually designed Bitcoin.
‘Approach (2)’ - Satoshi’s approach - Proof-of-Work
Satoshi, (correctly, brilliantly, counter-intuitively) specified (in the whitepaper, and in his software) that the “rules” of Bitcoin are decided in a totally different way.
He specified that the “rules” are decided after the fact - because they are decided by Proof-of-Work.
This means that whichever (branch of the) chain ends up having the most Proof-of-Work is by definition the valid chain.
The (counter-intuitive, hard-to-understand) implication here is that before any particular (branch of the chain) has clearly “won” in this ongoing, every-ten-minutes battle...
  • The “rules” determining which “next” block is “valid” are still “up in the air”;
  • The rules are “not yet decided” until after a block has been buried a-few-blocks-deep into the chain;
  • The “rules” will only become clear / manifest after we inspect the last few blocks appended to the chain which ended up (“after the fact”) having the most Proof-of-Work.
If we closely examine these two (quite different approaches), we can make a several observations:
First: There is a massive logical flaw in “naive” ‘Approach (1)’, when people try to apply it to Bitcoin.
This flaw can perhaps be informally captured by the following phrase:
“In ‘Approach (1)’, it’s turtles all the way down (which is of course impossible).”
‘Approach (1)’ suffers from a fatal omission: it fails to specify how the rules manifested / incorporated / coded in the software get put there in the first place.
This might seem like a “detail” - but actually it is everything.
This can be seen if we ask ourselves the following (rarely asked) questions:
  • Where do the “rules” come from?
  • Who makes those rules?
  • Satoshi?
  • Greg / Adam / Luke-Jr?
  • Blockstream?
  • The miners?
  • “Users”? (see: “User-Activated Soft Fork” / UASF)
  • “Investors” (aka: the “economic majority”)?
This also leads to other, specific questions, which are applicable in the current situation:
  • By what process do the rules get defined?
  • By a social / political process?
  • By a particular dev team offering some code?
Of course, initially Satoshi did offer some code - and it did contain some rules.
But Satoshi also explicitly stated that those rules at some point could be changed.
Satoshi suggested a process which could involve some political and social debate offline, culminating in some new code being released, and everyone installing that code, and - voilà - new “rules” determining the validity of subsequent blocks would now be in place.
For example, Satoshi famously made an important remark on bitcointalk.org where he suggested how this process could be used to remove the temporary anti-spam kludge which had been added to temporarily impose a 1MB “max blocksize” limit.
But Satoshi is gone now. So we can’t use him as an “authority” to hand down “the rules” to us.
But we still want Bitcoin to evolve - to be upgraded. (Otherwise, it will be destroyed by the alt-coins!)
For example, SegWit, although it is technically described as a “soft fork”, is one proposal for upgrading / evolving Bitcoin - and SegWit would involve a rather substantial change to the “rules” - indeed, SegWit would involve making all transactions “anyone-can-spend” under the old rules - which, by the way, is the main reason why SegWit is so dangerous, and which is why it should be rejected.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited doesn’t really “change the rules” per se - but it does make it easier for miners and full node operators to express their preference regarding one particular rule - the rule involving how big a block can be.
So we are now faced with the question:
  • Who makes the rules? And how?
Here’s the answer:
Satoshi’s revolutionary solution to defining “the rules” is not based on social or political processes - which can be manipulated (eg by sybil attacks, bribes, coercion, violence, etc.)
Instead, Satoshi’s brilliant mechanism for deciding which block to append next is based on Proof-of-Work, as summarized in the slogans “One CPU, one vote” or “They vote with their hashpower”.
This moment of “voting with their hashpower” is the actual process where “the rules” (governing the validity of the next block) come into existence.
This is all very counterintuitive to many people.
But other people (who perhaps have a more “sophisticated” appreciation of social and economic processes - or perhaps a “deeper” understanding of game theory) can often begin to glimpse the massive flaw in “naive” ‘Approach (1)’.
The problem with “naive” ‘Approach (1)’ is that it neglects to specify where the rules come from - ie, who makes “the rules” - and how.
Once Satohsi himself is removed from the picture, we have a situation where we have to “somehow” do all of the following:
  • agree on certain rules,
  • then get them into software,
  • and then get that software deployed on the network,
  • and then 51% of all hashpower has to start mining using those rules,
  • and then in a 10-minute period where various “candidate blocks” are competing to be appended to the chain, one of those blocks ends up getting “buried deeper” under more Proof-of-Work
  • and at that point , the system has been “upgraded”, and the newly appended block reflects the new “rules”.
In most cases (but not in all cases) “the new rules” are the same as “the old rules”.
This is because this system does allow the rules to be changed, when Bitcoin evolves or gets upgraded.
We should also add the ‘caveat’ there that this system only works if the majority of hashpower does not adopt “crazy rules” - ie rules which would decrease the value of everyone’s bitcoins.
The system only works if the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking” - ie, if the majority never adopts “crazy rules” which would destroy the value of everyone’s coins.
The important thing is that the rules are “post-defined” - after the next block has been added chain (and a few more blocks have been piled on top of it).
  • This means that there are no “pre-defined” rules in the system.
  • There are only “post-defined” rules, which can be observed by inspecting the decisions made by the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking” hashpower, as new blocks got appended to the chain.
The only part of this scenario that guarantees a decentralized, permissionless, trustless system is the on-chain Proof-of-Work stuff - not the off-chain social / political stuff.
All the other stuff (the political / social process where people argue about rules, code them up in software, and deploy that software on the network) - all that “prior” stuff is done using the “old” “pre-Satoshi” methods - so it’s not actually reliable (ie, it’s not decentralized or permissionless or trustless - ie, it can be sabotaged by sybils, or bribery, or threats of violence, etc.)
So the political / social process of talking about the rules on Reddit or on a mailing list, or coding up some rules in some code and offering that code to the public (eg, Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, saying “These are the rules”) - that part of the process is not “Nakamoto Consensus”, so it’s not reliable, and it’s not “Bitcoin.”
The magical moment where the system actually becomes “Bitcoin” is when the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking miners” use Proof-of-Work to decide what block is the one that gets appended to the chain.
Another metaphor might be that the (naive, incorrect) ‘Approach (1)’ assumes that some other higher authority (Satoshi, Greg, Core/Blockstream) has already handed down the “rules” in C++ code.
Meanwhile the correct ‘Approach (2)’ - (Nakamoto Consensus a/k/a “one CPU, one vote” a/k/a “They vote with their hashpower”) does not require the existence of any authority (no Satoshi, no Greg, no Blockstream) to pre-define the “rules”.
Bitcoin simply requires that the majority of miners must be “intelligently profit seeking” - and then whatever they vote on as being “the next block” is by definition the next block - and they “re-decide” on this (essentially “re-deciding” on what the rules are) every ten minutes.
This is incredibly counter-intuitive to many, many people - especially to people who are of an “authoritarian” mindset - ie, they are accustomed to “rules being handed down from some higher authority”.
But this is how Bitcoin actually works.
The rules are decided not by me or by you or by Satoshi or by Greg or by Blockstream.
The rules are decided by the miners - and re-decided every ten minutes (usually the “same old” rules as during the previous ten minutes - but not “always”: because there are times when the rules may indeed be upgraded, if the majority of hashpower suddenly decides so).
And the mechanism for these rules being decided (and re-decided, and re-decided, every ten minutes) is: hashpower, a/k/a “one CPU, one vote” - which simply requires that the majority of miners must be “intelligently profit-seeking”.
Sidebar:
Of course, Exhibit A in any discussion about “authoritarianism” would be Luke-Jr, because he provides the most glaring and grotesque example of the “error of authoritarianism”.
This may indeed be a deep-seated psychological problem, so we can’t really “blame” the person for it.
But at the same time, we should always be vigilant to make sure that this “error of authoritarianism” does not get adopted as part of Bitcoin’s system for determining “the rules” - because the only way that Bitcoin can remain decentralized and permissionless and trustless is if we use Proof-of-Work (and not some “higher authority”) to determine “the rules”.
‘Approach (1)’ is used quite widely. It powers many legacy systems in the world - but it’s not what makes Bitcoin decentralized and permissionless and trustless!
In “legacy” systems, people used a political / social process to agree upon some rules (vulnerable to all the old attacks: in particularly sybil attacks, social coercion, ostracism, bribes, threats of violence or actual acts of violence, etc.) - and, eventually, through this messy process, a set of rules was finally hammered out.
Then these socially / politically selected rules become manifested / incorporated (“coded up”) in some software, and that software gets deployed on the network, and then everything becomes wonderfully easy: it is now just a question of checking whether a particular block satisfies those rules or not.
This (naive, non-Bitcoin) ‘Approach (1)’ all sounds wonderful until one remembers that it does not provide us with any decentralized, permissionless, trustless mechanism for actually forming consensus on what these “rules” should be, and then coding them in software, and getting everyone to install that software on the network!
At this point, many people (eg, the smart investors who understood Bitcoin from the very beginning) can see that this “naive” ‘Approach (1)’ neglects to specify the process of how these particular “rules” got manifested / incorporated / coded in the software itself - and how people reached a consensus to deploy this particular software on the network.
The current ongoing “blocksize debate” uses a social / political process for deciding on “the rules” - ie, it does not use Proof-of-Work.
This is the social / political / off-chain war we’re seeing now - where:
  • One faction (Core/Blockstream today) wants a “rule” that says that blocks must be less than 1 MB,
  • Another faction wants a rule that says that blocks must be less than 8 MB,
  • Another faction (BU / Emergent Consensus) wants a convenient “on-chain pre-signaling system” where miners can pre-announce their intention to adopt certain rules regarding the maximum size of the next block that they will mine (1 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, etc.)
  • Another faction (SegWit) wants a new rule where all transactions would be considered “anyone-can-spend”, plus a new rule added to the system to do a different verification process regarding who can actually spend them.
It’s all fine for this social / political / off-chain “rule-deciding” process to be taking place now - wherever it happens to take place - eg, on Reddit, on Slack, in various dev mailing lists, perhaps at meetings at Blockstream, perhaps in secret gathering places such as the notorious “Dragons Den” - and also now to some extent it has been starting to take place at other social / political venues - eg other online forums devoted to discussing other clients (BU, Classic, etc.).
But any rules which are decided “off-chain” like this aren’t really “rules” yet. They can only become “rules” if the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking hashpower” actually mines a block which satisfies these “rules”.
‘Approach (2)’ is the major breakthrough invented by Satoshi - his solution to the Byzantine General Problem, supporting decentralized formation of consensus among parties who do not trust each other.
This breakthrough was also so counter-intuitive that very, very few people even understood it when Satoshi first proposed it in the whitepaper, and in the accompanying C++ code.
In particular, as amazing as it may sound, there are many Core / Blockstream devs who do not actually understand the subtle stuff here about how Bitcoin really works.
Why are people always so angry at Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr?
I’m going to step on some people’s toes by making provocative and even somewhat unkind statements - I do apologize, but I also do believe I am describing real and unfortunate problems which are critically important to address and resolve.
People who do not have a very clear understanding of how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work might have a hard time understanding this mechanism invented by Satoshi.
Yes this (unfortunately) means guys like Greg Maxwell and Adam Back.
They both know cryptography - and Greg knows C++ - but these two guys in particular apparently do not have a very good understanding of how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work.
They understand how (given a pre-existing set of rules) a particular implementation can reflect / express those “rules”.
But they never have shown any understanding for the “bigger” process whereby those “rules” got selected in the first place.
Indeed, in their arrogance and hubris, they assume that they are the ones who define those rules (in a non-decentralized, non-permissionless, non-trustless manner - ie, in a totally anti-Bitcoin manner).
I know this may sound like an insult - and I have certainly hurled it as an insult on many occasions in this forum over the years - out of frustration at the fact that these two guys have set themselves up as leaders for this system - so they are effectively attempting to sabotaging Bitcoin.
But in addition to being an “insult”, it also happens to be a fact. (So maybe we can just call it an “insulting fact”.)
I did not originally (several years ago) hurl this as an “insult”. I only started to raise my voice and get angry when (and many other people) I had to repeat this fundamental (but admittedly subtle) aspect of Bitcoin over and over again for years - because guys like Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr - who don’t actually understand how Bitcoin actually works - kept telling people like me that we were “wrong” (when in fact Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr are wrong - at least on this subtle and crucial point about when and where and how the “rules” of Bitcoin get decided).
Anyone can read the whitepaper. And if you do, you will notice this amazing thing. The “rules” are not pre-defined by any authority.
The “rules” are actually “post-defined” as a by-product of the process of hashing, which is based on the fact that the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking”.
Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr erroneously “assume” that they are the ones who decide the rules.
But this is not how Satoshi designed Bitcoin.
And this - in a nutshell, is the main reason why people are so angry at Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr.
And it’s also, the reason why Bitcoin’s market share has been declining, now dropping below 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap - due in large part to the fact that, for the past few years, Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr have been running around telling everyone that they get to define the rules - when all the really intelligent people involved in Bitcoin know that this is not the case: the hashpower defines the rules, as manifested by Proof-of-Work!
Of course, if we want to be “charitable”, then we cannot really “blame” them for being wrong about this subtle but fundamental about where the “rules” of Bitcoin actually come from.
The sad but likely truth is that people who spend most of their waking hours thinking about things like C++ and cryptography may have a certain kind of “mindset” which makes them suffer from “blind spots” when it comes to understanding how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work.
Sorry if this sounds harsh - but at this point, after all the damage inflicted on Bitcoin by Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr (now with Bitcoin’s market share below 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap), a certain amount of “tough love” diagnosis (or even anger, or insults, or name-calling) is certainly justified - in order for Bitcoin to survive.
And the only way that Bitcoin can survive is if we reject the attempts by guys like Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr to pre-define Bitcoin’s rules for us.
The only way Bitcoin can survive is if we remember that the rules are defined by the majority of the miners, who are “intelligently profit-seeking”.
What is at stake here is nothing less than the economic future (and perhaps even the very survival) of humanity. We cannot allow a tiny group of arrogant devs (who apparently lack certain social / economic skills) to destroy Satoshi’s vital invention by forcing “their” rules onto the network.
This is why it would be nice if Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr would do some deep inner reflection, to understand that they do not decide the “rules” for Bitcoin.
The “rules” are decided by Proof-of-Work - not by Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr.
So, the only phase of this whole process which actually “matters” (in the novel system devised by Satoshi) is the moment where all this debate actually gets manifested during a ten-minute period where several “candidate blocks” are all simultaneously competing to be appended to the tip of the growing blockchain.
And then, only one of these new “candidate” blocks ends up getting a larger amount of Proof-of-Work on top of it (as other, succeeding “candidate” blocks gets added) - and then (and this is the really brilliant part of Satoshi’s invention), the “economic incentive” aspect of Satoshi’s brilliant invention starts to act - combined with the “stochastic” aspect - which is just fancy mathematical terminology for saying that “as more and more blocks get piled on to the chain, it becomes vanishingly improbable for those deeply buried blocks to ever get ‘un-confirmed’ via a chain re-org.”
Sidebar:
These two parts - the “economic incentives” stuff involving the valuable economic token, and the “stochastic” stuff where blocks “buried deeper” in the chain will almost certainly not be “un-conformed” by a chain re-org - were hard for guys like Greg and Adam to understand in the early years.
Remember, in the early years, when these two “brilliant” guys first heard about Bitcoin:
  • Greg Maxwell “mathematically proved” that Bitcoin couldn’t work.
  • And Adam Back ignored emails from Satoshi explaining the system, and didn’t get involved until the price of Bitcoin was over $1000.
  • Meanwhile, many other people (who are actually smarter than Greg and Adam about economics and consensus) simply read the whitepaper, understood all this subtle stuff about “(re-)deciding rules every 10 minutes using hashpower” - and they started mining (or buying).
So Greg and Adam are not among the smartest people people when it comes to understanding how Bitcoin really works.
This shows that people with a more “mathematical” or “computer science” mindset can’t always grasp the other, non-mathematical, non-computer-science-based aspects of Satoshi’s invention: ie, the “economic incentive” aspect, where miners are “economically incentivized” not only to compete in the hash race to get their block appended to the chain, but also “economically incentivized” to only attempt to append blocks which don’t use any “crazy rules” (eg, the majority of miners will not attempt to append a block which would violate the 21 million coin issuance limit).
Most importantly this means that the “rule” which says “let’s not violate the 21 million coin issuance limit” also is not handed down from some higher authority, such as Satoshi, or Greg or Adam or Luke-Jr, or Blockstream.
Instead, this rule is decided, and re-decided - and enforced, and re-enforced - essentially put up for a vote, and put up for a re-vote - every ten minutes in Bitcoin.
And - mirabile dictu - in every single one of those every-ten-minutes insta-votes, the majority of the miners vote to “do the right thing” - not because they’re “honest” - but because they’re “intelligently profit-seeking” - ie, they don’t want to destroy the value of the bitcoin that they’re mining.
If Adam and Greg really understood that no single person decides the “rules”, then they wouldn’t try to force their own rules on Bitcoin. Instead, they’d sit back like the rest of us do, and let the majority of mining hashpower decide (and re-decide, and re-decide) the “rules” - every 10 minutes - which is how Bitcoin works - with no need for any enlightened (ie, non-decentralized, non-permissionless, non-trustless) “intervention” from “well-meaning” “authorities” like Adam and Greg.
We don’t need to presume malice on their part. But we do need to confront the massive damage which Adam and Greg have started to inflict on Bitcoin.
As seen in Greg’s quote at the beginning of this OP (where he proudly proclaims that he has been “maintaining [Bitcoin] for the last six years”), Greg thinks he’s an “expert” (and he might even feel that he is “benign” - ie, he “only wants the best for Bitcoin”).
So Greg might feel comfortable dictating the “rules” of Bitcoin to other people - even though this would end up being fatal - ie it would kill Bitcoin if we allow Greg to impose his rules on us like this.
Bitcoin does not work based on “benign” dictators or authorities defining our rules for us.
Bitcoin works based on the majority of mining hashpower being “intelligently profit-seeking”.
This is why Adam and Greg must be stopped (or at least ignored). And the only way we can stop (or ignore) them is with our hashpower.
This has been a long and messy process - a political and social debate that has lasted years, and which has involved many shenanigans.
In the end, if Bitcoin actually works, new and better rules will be adopted. (Otherwise, it will be surpassed by some alt which does adopt new and better rules.)
And they will be adopted by the process which Satoshi specified: at the precise moment when the majority of mining hashpower (which is always “intelligently profit-seeking”) adds a new block to the chain which happens to satisfy a new set of rules - eg, a block that’s 1.1 MB.
We don’t know when a block like this will get added to the chain. But when it does happen, it will be because the majority of mining hashpower (which is always “intelligently profit-seeking”) decided to do so.
Which means that Bitcoin will continue to function, and everyone’s investment will continue to be preserved (in probably dramatically increased at that point, as people flood back into Bitcoin from the alts =).
Back to the actual process of appending a block to the chain:
Each of these competing “candidate blocks” carries with it a “coinbase reward” (currently 12.5 Bitcoins) - and all the miners, who are “intelligently profit-seeking” (see the OP cited previously quoting some very insightful posts by u/ForkiusMaximus), quickly form consensus to recognize the “candidate block” which is accumulating the most Proof-of-Work on top of it as the “accepted” block, while “orphaning” the other “candidate blocks” which were also competing to be added to the chain.
So the tip of the chain looks during any given 10-minute period is actually “fuzzy” or non-deterministic. Many of us may simply think in terms of “the chain”. But the tip of the chain - where multiple “candidate blocks” are still competing to get added to the chain - the tip of the chain is non-deterministic or “fuzzy”, since it is actually plural and not singular, while various “candidate blocks” are still “fighting it out” to become “the” block that actually gets added to the chain.
Here is where the “stochastic” aspect of the situation comes into effect - because any particular “ordering” of the tip of the chain (whereby the miners have selected only one of the “tips” being appended to the blockchain as being the “accepted” one) could still of course undergo a “re-org”.
We use the word “stochastic” to describe the fact that the chances of such a re-org actually happening rapidly become smaller and smaller, as each successive new “candidate block” gets appended on top of the the chain-tip which ended up getting the majority of the hashing power... so that after about 6 blocks, we can say that (in this “stochastic” process), the probability of a block already “six blocks deep” getting kicked out in a re-org is vanishingly small.
And voilà - distributed consensus about the ordering of blocks has been achieved, in a decentralized and permissionless and trust-free environment, brilliantly solving the Byzantine Generals Problem - truly a historic breakthrough.
So Bitcoin is based on multiple components
There’s lots of things going on here.
  • There’s a decentralized system.
  • There’s the hashing - based, yes, on the hashcash system developed by Adam - and previously by other researchers as well - and also based on the cryptographic signatures.
  • But the more interesting (albeit subtle) parts of the system are the economic and game theory / social aspects - ie, the token having value, and the “stochastic” aspect where a block gets buried deeper and deeper in the chain - and the majority of miners being “intelligently profit-seeking” so they will compete to have their block included in the chain, but they also won’t “cheat” by awarding themselves more coins, or by trying to not recognize some other miner’s “winning” or “accepted” block - because in the end, they want the system to keep going - and they want the tokens maintain their economic value.
This system, as invented by Satoshi, does not involve a notion of “validity” based on some pre-existing “rules” which are (already) manifested / incorporated / coded in some software (by some unspecified political / social process) - because that would be the old systems which Nakamoto Consensus was designed to replace.
The notion of “validity” in Bitcoin as Satoshi designed it is not based on any “pre-defined” rules.
It never could be - because then we’d need a way to “pre-define” those rules.
The notion of “validity” in Bitcoin is based on “post-defined” rules.
This means that the “rules” can only be observed “after the fact” - based on whatever blocks “ended up” getting buried a-few-confirmation-deep-into-the-chain, as a result of the majority of miners being “intelligently profit-seeking” as they decide, and re-decide, and re-decide - every 10 minutes - on “what block to append next”.
As shockingly counter-intuitive as it may seem, there are no “pre-defined” rules in Bitcoin.
There are only “post-defined” rules - which can only be observed “after the fact” - by examining which block “ended up” getting added by hashpower.
It’s very weird to try to wrap your head around a system where the “rules” are defined “after the fact”.
So how do the rules get “changed” - for example when we eventually really do want something like a bigger blocksize?
This is how it works:
While the next block is about to be appended to the chain (ie, while several of blocks are still competing for this honor), these various competing blocks might actually reflect various rules (eg, at a moment when an “upgrade” is being “deployed”).
We won’t know which rules were “The Rules”TM until after only one of those blocks has been buried a few blocks deep in a chain (eg 6 confirmations),
Then we can say that this is the (branch of) the chain having the most Proof-of-Work.
Sidebar:
Of course, Satoshi’s explanation was much more succinct than this OP - and he even provided an executable version!
And other people may also offer their own “informal” explanations of this same system.
I hope that these explanations might help more people (including Greg?) gain a deeper understanding of Satoshi’s invention.
The only thing we have to guide us (regarding the “rules” of Bitcoin) is the hashpower of the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking miners”.
In particular, we cannot turn to any of the following wannabe “authorities” when trying to figure out what “the rules” of Bitcoin are:
  • u/nullc Greg Maxwell CTO of Blockstream,
  • u/adam3us Adam Back CEO of Blockstream
At some level, Greg and Adam still don’t understand Satoshi’s brilliant design for Bitcoin, where the hashpower decides (and re-decides) the rules every ten minutes.
This may due to the observation by Sinclair Lewis that “A man cannot understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it” - ie, because Greg and Adam are getting millions of dollars in fiat by companies such as AXA - who might not want guys Adam and Greg to understand Satoshi’s invention.
Conclusion
Satoshi’s brilliant solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem of Decentralized Permissionless Trust-Free Consensus-Forming is based on Proof-of-Work.
This involves multiple blocks competing to be added to the “tip” of a blockchain and then everyone forming consensus around the “branch” of the chain which has the most Proof-of-Work.
This is based on a “stochastic” process where a block which is 1, 2, 3... etc. levels deep becomes “more and more” confirmed - ie, “less and less” likely to be orphaned - because it would be “harder and harder” to switch (re-org) to another “branch” of the chain now that that block has got so many other blocks appended after it.
The “rules” in Bitcoin are “post-defined” - based Proof-of-Work.
Proof-of-Work is not, technically, based on pre-defined “rules”.
This is really subtle! It’s hard for some people to wrap their head around the concepts that:
  • There are no (pre-defined) rules.
  • During any given 10-minute period, there are often multiple “tips” to the chain.
  • The “rules” are “post-defined” - after one of those tips has the most hashpower piled on top of it.
  • But this is how Bitcoin really works!
In Bitcoin, the “rules” are “post-defined” and not “pre-defined”.
The rules can only be observed after a block has become “buried” a few confirmations deep into the chain.
And during certain (generally rare) 10-minute periods, it may even be the case that the various competing “candidate blocks” satisfy different rule-sets (eg, when a new rule-set is being deployed).
Only after hashpower has added a block - ie, retrospectively - are we able to look back and see what “the rules” are.
Yes this stands everything on its head.
But this is the only way we can get a system which is decentralized and permissionless and trustless.
Because if Proof-of-Work doesn’t decide the rules, then we’re back to the “bad old days” where Greg, or Blockstream, or some other “centralized trusted authority” decides the rules.
So, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, Proof-of-Work decides the rules (and not the other way around).
This stuff is subtle - and I hope better explanations continue to be provided.
My way of working through it all has been to write up posts like this - while also reading posts by important people who really understand this subtle stuff - eg, guys like u/ForkiusMaximus and u/Capt_Roger_Murdock.
Meanwhile Satoshi’s explanation (the whitepaper) - and the code - are one of the most important accomplishments in the history of humanity.
Hopefully as time goes on, more people (including Greg and Adam!) will be start to be able to understand this amazing system invented by Satoshi - where the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking”, and they “vote with their hashpower” to decide (and re-decide, and re-decide - every ten minutes) - in a decentralized, permissionless, trustless manner - on the “rules” for appending the next block to the chain.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

A collection of evidence regarding Bitcoin's takeover and problems.

REPOSTED THIS FOR MORE VISIBILITY & FEW EDITS
On November 22 I posted this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7eszwk/links_related_to_blockstreams_takeover_of_bitcoin
On December this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7mg4tm/updated_dec_2017_a_collection_of_evidence/
On January this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7qfw2b/a_collection_of_evidence_regarding_bitcoins/
This is March update
I will be removing duplicates and off-topic content. #34 and #74 has been changed. Please give me feed back, and also recommend a new title if you guys have any idea :)
The Bitcoin Whitepaper
PDF
1 The history between btc and bitcoin
Archive link
yours.org link
2 A brief and incomplete history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Archive link
3 User posts on bitcoin about 6900 BTC that theymos stole, post gets removed.
Archive link
4 Go to /noncensored_bitcoin to see posts that have been censored in /bitcoin
5 Theymos caught red-handed - why he censors all the forums he controls, including /bitcoin
Archive link
6 User gets banned from /bitcoin for saying "A $5 fee to send $100 is absolutely ridiculous"
Archive link
7 Greg Maxwell caught using sockpuppets
Archive link
8 [Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively"](https:// np.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/)
Archive link
9 Remember how lightening network was promised to be ready by summer 2016? https://coinjournal.net/lightning-network-should-be-ready-this-summe
Archive link
10 rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains
Archive link
11 "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO
Archive link
Twitter proof
Twitter Archive link
12 September 2017 stats post of bitcoin censorship
Archive link
13 Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
Archive link
14 bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
Archive link
15 In January 2017, someone paid 0.23 cents for 1 transaction. As of December 2017, fees have peaked $40.
16 Told to kill yourself by Bitcoin for cashing out
17 Bitcoin is a captured system
18 Bot attack against bitcoin was allegedly perpetrated by its own moderator and Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell
19 Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".
20 Bitcoin Cash has got nothing new.
21 How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC
More evidence
22 Even Core developers used to support 8-100MB blocks before they work for the Bankers
Proof
23 /Bitcoin loves to call Bitcoin Cash "ChinaCoin", but do they realize that over 70% of BTC hashrate comes from China?
24 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
25 First, they said they want BCH on coinbase so they could dump it. Now they are crying about it because it's pumping.
26 Luke-Jr thinks reducing the blocksize will reduce the fees..
27 Core: Bitcoin isn't for the poor. Bitcoin Cash: we'll take them. Our fees are less than a cent. Core: BCash must die!
28 How The Banks Bought Bitcoin. The Lightning Network
29 Big Blocks Can Scale, But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
30 "Fees will drop when everyone uses Lightning Networks" is the new "Fees will drop when SegWit is activated"
31 Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls
32 The bitcoin civil war is not about block size; it's about freedom vs. authoritarianism
33 Why BCH is the real Bitcoin
34 Segwit does not block ASICBoost. SlushPool supports it.
35 We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
36 Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.
37 A explaination why Core's vision is different from the real Bitcoin vision
38 The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
39 Lighting Network was supposed to be released in 2016
40 You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction
41 They say we are trying to Kill Bitcoin. No, we are not. We are trying to save it, and make it usable for everyone, and everything. Not tomorrow. Not 6 months from now, Not 18 Months from now. NOW. That's what's going on Here.
42 Miners that want to pull out daily have to switch to BCH due to the fees
43 At $25 #BTC tx fees, if miners want to withdraw their revenue daily, they require a minimum of $140,000 worth of mining hardware to reduce the tx fee to less than 1% of their outgoings. At a $100 tx fee it requires min $560,000. Which is the centralising coin again?
44 Core developer : Bitcoin fees too high? You have invested in early tech! Have faith. Give us time.
45 A redditor even predicted the /bitcoin front page
46 Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s
47 /bitcoin is in uproar about Coinbase not implementing Segwit -> mempool mooning is single handedly Coinbase' fault. So all it takes to bring bitcoin to its knees is a single corporate entity not implementing segwit? Me thinks its not Coinbase there's something wrong with.
48 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
49 $BCH has been attacked in every way possible since it's creation. Exchanges listing it with deceiving names and abbreviations; being dumped by bitcoin holders for over 6 months; and it still managed to close every month positively, while adding numerous new wallet/exchange pairs
50 theymos claims that the whitepaper is a historical artifact not worthy of being on the sidebar of bitcoin
51 Even a Bitcoin conference can't use Bitcoin because of it's high fees
52 185% Growth in Active Addresses for BCH in 1 month, 125% for ETH, -5% for BTC
53 Shapeshift: "Sub-$100 fees unadvisable on BTC." Core supporters: "Implement Segwit already!" Shapeshift: "We did. We're the biggest user of Segwit."
54 How btc and Bitcoin see each other
55 Man who vandalized Bitmain's office hired by Blockstream
56 Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin Core compared. Just the facts
57 It was obvious from the very beginning that #Bitcoin transactions were meant to be as cheap as possible. Bitcoin Core has destroyed Bitcoin's usefulness as money by creating a system where $30 fees are celebrated. - @Bitcoin
58 User explains why Core's vision is not the real Bitcoin vision
59 Fake Tweet from the president bashes BCH on /bitcoin front page. Calling it exactly what it is will get you banned.
60 A public appeal to Michael Marquardt the original Theymos.
61 Now they are angry at the CEO of Coinbase for supporting BCH. It's like you are not allowed to have your own opinion without getting attacked.
62 bitcoin user says Bitcoin should not be used as a cryptocurrency
63 The five stages of grief, transaction fees
64 A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be
65 Warning! Theymos admitted he 'misled millions of people' yet he wanna 'leave the text as it is' to mislead more people!
66 "Wait. What? My private keys need to be on an internet-connected computer in order to use Lightning Network?"
67 a year ago Adam Back accused u/Jacktenz of exaggerated claims about fees. The truth is the claims were understated!
68 Roger Ver was not selling explosives, he was selling firecrackers.
69 Core devs pop champaigne, and openly celebrate high fees. Now core supporters blame coinbase for high fees?
70 Now that we've had a few 8MB blocks, let's dispel this centralisation myth once and for all.
71 Reddit admin sodypop on censorship in /Bitcoin: "We generally allow moderators to run their communities how they like as long as they are within our site-wide rules and moderator guidelines." Blatant censorship, hacking, vote manipulation, and brigading are "within [Reddit's] site-wide rules".
72 Another obvious sockpuppet account being used to push Blockstream's agenda.
73 Totally organic grassroots support for the #NO2X "movement." Definitely not a purchased sockpuppet account, you guys.
74 Why Bitcoin Cash
75 If it’s inaccessible to the poor it’s neither radical nor revolutionary.
76 BSCoretabs shills are vandalizing Wikipedia to smear Roger Ver with false quoting, missparaphrasing and accusations.
77 Introducing dipshit extraordinaire Warren Togami, the link between Theymos and BlockStream
78 Debunking: "Blockstream is 3 or 4 developers out of hundreds of developers at Core" - Tone Vays
79 This blockchain debate is purely political and is not about scaling but about control. X-Post from /bitcoin
80 A profile to look at for more evidence
81 What exactly is Blockstream Core's excuse for causing a year of stagnation in Bitcoin with no end in sight?
82 We have a way to build bank-like services.
83 "There is a reason why things are done in a certain way in the financial system, and Bitcoin will be doing something similar"
84 Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.
85 Theymos on Bitcoin XT
86 (If this is not allowed mods, please remove this text) I cannot verify this yet, but a source has given me information about theymos. theymos is known as Michael Marquardt, from Wisconsin and is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin as a computer-science student.
87 A video that Blockstream does not want you to see
88 A story of how someone was brainwashed
89 Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin
90 What /btc is up against
91 OpenBazaar dev explains why they won't implement Lightning Network
92 An extended history of Bitcoin Cash
93 Should I trust Bitcoin Cash ? Roger Ver seems shady
94 /btc gets brigaded and blackmailed
95 Bitcoin Core talking points translated honestly
96 Possible attacks on Bitcoin. One of them did happen
97 How many people are aware that Bitcoin Cash is a manipulation made by Roger Ver, CNBC and Coinbase?
98 Why Rick Falkvinge chose Bitcoin Cash
More from Rick
99 Can Bitcoin Cash scale on-chain?
100 Are bigger blocks better for bigger miners?
101 Jonald Fyookball corrects the misinformation
102 A developer, Luke-Jr, in the Core team is crazy
Thanks to singularity87, 103 to 106. There are more in his link
103 Using the HK agreement to stall miners from adopting bitcoin classic
104 Luke-Jr would be fine with having Jihan Wu executed
105 Theymos threatens to write to the SEC
106 Matt Corallo writes to the SEC to make Core’s BTC the “official” btc.
107 Re: BCH as an altcoin
108 The difference between BTC and BCH
109 Someone asks why Bitcoin Core refuses to increase the blocksize
110 Bitcoin back then : 1, 2, 3, 4
111 More resources
submitted by thepaip to btc [link] [comments]

Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam - About Their Bitcoin Wallet, Exchange, And Merchant Solution Bloomberg: Coinbase CEO, Brian Armstrong Interview - What's Next for Coinbase? Bitcoin Core's Feature Proved to be Easy to Exploit, Coinbase CEO Patents Emailing Bitcoin and More Brian Armstrong News: Coinbase Pro, Bitcoin Mining, BTC ... CEO CoinBase Brian Armstrong Equates BITCOIN to NETSCAPE as OLD Failing Tech. ETH 2.0 Whale+FRANCE

Bitcoin Classic Adoption has been growing steadily since the release of its second beta, with 12.9% of the current nodes using Classic at the time of writing. Coinbase is a large bitcoin exchange with a lot of users — and therefore sway over node adoption. This node transition could push those numbers into the territory of a drawn out branch competition with Bitcoin Core, or while less ... Bitcoin Classic version 0.11.2, the first release of the new fork, has gone public. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong writes in his twitter that the wallet switches to the version to “help Bitcoin scale.”. The release focuses on doubling the transaction capacity of bitcoin digital currency and includes a change of consensus rule that increases the block size limit from 1 to 2 Mb. Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, left the Satoshi Roundtable very concerned about bitcoin’s scaling challenge and is urging everyone to upgrade to Bitcoin Classic to buy time to address the scaling issue and prevent serious problems. Brian Armstrong is the co-founder and CEO of Coinbase. Armstrong founded the company, which has become one of the largest in the Bitcoin space, in June 2012. Experience. Before founding Coinbase, Armstrong worked as a Software Engineer at AirBNB from 2011-2012. Previously, he founded UniversityTutory.com and also worked as a software engineer at CarWoo.com. Education. Armstrong holds three ... The Coinbase CEO’s fears about the future of Bitcoin are not isolated. After a large increase in transaction times for several days this week, some people in the community worried that slow transactions would become the “new normal” for Bitcoin. Although the network eventually sped back up, the fear about full blocks remains.

[index] [10008] [5149] [25303] [19697] [31158] [34232] [46918] [49280] [19089] [47963]

Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam - About Their Bitcoin Wallet, Exchange, And Merchant Solution

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong wins new crypto tech patent The patent details a system for users to make cryptocurrency payments with email addresses linked to corresponding wallet addresses. BREAKING: CEO of CoinBase lays it out in a series of tweets and talks about Bitcoin BTC possibly shaping up to be the NETSCAPE of Cryptocurrency. France Gets Digital Asset Clarity and Ethereum ETH ... Mike Hearn Bitcoin Core Developer About Smart Contracts - Duration: 26:41. Naation 136 views. 26:41. ... Coinbase CEO Armstrong on the Future of Crypto - Duration: 26:20. Bloomberg Markets and ... CoinPilot bitcoin Bitcoin cash Bitcoin atm bitcoin wallet bitcoin mining Coinbase Aljazeera crypto cryptocurrency cypto wallet cryptocurrency wallet crypto currency mining ethereum ethereum mining ... 1E7wAQF8gaSvnmM7KjnptTKzALYqhSssvC - copy 1 The founder and CEO of Coinbase, Brian Armstrong, will speak about Coinbase Pro, Bitcoin Halving and Mining in 20...

#